Bioshock and Mass Effect, Game Informer Drives it Home

[Nomanslander]

*snip*

Why are you wondering what game reviewers think when you already know the answer to your questions of how good the games are?

Anyways, not all reviewers give the same scores, I've seen Bioshock 2 get 5/5 and a 9.5 score by some reviewers, just depends on where you look. That and reviewers also tend to be bias where they won't complain seeing another space marine shooter or JRR inspired RPG added to the list of games but will cry like douche bags when a game like BS2 doesn't change that much in the formula.

Plus, even I have to admit 2k didn't exactly do as much as they could have, even though BS2 is a better game than the first....hopefully by the time BS3 comes out these reviews will ride their asses to try harder.

 

[DustyDrB]

I haven't played either ( stupid computer!) yet so I can't have a say

Right.

BUT I think Bioshock 2 deserves a higher rating.

But...you just said...

I'm joking. I haven't played Bioshock 2 (and I won't) and only played up to the crazy doctor in the first game before my heart gave out. I'm a wuss and can't handle that much relentless tension. I did watch a friend play some, and saw a lot of the big plot points.

Don't let Game Informer break your hearts. I'm not going to say game reviews are useless, as I use them quite a bit. Why blindly spend $60? More importantly than the number they give is what is WRITTEN. Much of what I've read and heard about Bioshock 2 is that it is so familiar that it kills the mystery that was ever-present in the first game. That, and Bioshock 1 didn't demand a sequel, so there's not quite the anticipation (for most people) as there was for Mass Effect 2.

 

[Plurralbles]

Because EA is bigger and has more money than 2k games?

Win. And perhaps teh games came out with too little time difference between games.

And thre's hype surrounding the origionals, making it so that reviewers are too... I dont' want to say stupid but will call them that, to realize a game that is over all just as good or better than the other.

 

[Nouw]

I haven't played either ( stupid computer!) yet so I can't have a say

Right.

BUT I think Bioshock 2 deserves a higher rating.

But...you just said...

I'm joking. I haven't played Bioshock 2 (and I won't) and only played up to the crazy doctor in the first game before my heart gave out. I'm a wuss and can't handle that much relentless tension. I did watch a friend play some, and saw a lot of the big plot points.

Don't let Game Informer break your hearts. I'm not going to say game reviews are useless, as I use them quite a bit. Why blindly spend $60? More importantly than the number they give is what is WRITTEN. Much of what I've read and heard about Bioshock 2 is that it is so familiar that it kills the mystery that was ever-present in the first game. That, and Bioshock 1 didn't demand a sequel, so there's not quite the anticipation (for most people) as there was for Mass Effect 2.

2 words: Youtube

 

[Axeli]

I haven't played either ( stupid computer!) yet so I can't have a say

Right.

BUT I think Bioshock 2 deserves a higher rating.

But...you just said...

I'm joking. I haven't played Bioshock 2 (and I won't) and only played up to the crazy doctor in the first game before my heart gave out. I'm a wuss and can't handle that much relentless tension. I did watch a friend play some, and saw a lot of the big plot points.

Don't let Game Informer break your hearts. I'm not going to say game reviews are useless, as I use them quite a bit. Why blindly spend $60? More importantly than the number they give is what is WRITTEN. Much of what I've read and heard about Bioshock 2 is that it is so familiar that it kills the mystery that was ever-present in the first game. That, and Bioshock 1 didn't demand a sequel, so there's not quite the anticipation (for most people) as there was for Mass Effect 2.

2 words: Youtube

Because it's exactly like actually playing them.

Also: That's just one word.

 

[ShakesZX]

snip

I'm not saying i didn't love the game. I actually haven't put it down since i got it. I loved the back stories too. Especially Miranda's and Garrus'. I just wouldn't classify them as part of the main story.

If that is how you define them, then the main story is decidedly much,much darker than in the first Mass Effect.

I just don't see why'd you put so high wall between the main plot and side stories that you'd not consider them being dark and gritty the same as Mass Effect 2 being dark and gritty. I don't get the reasoning "Mass Effect 2 isn't dark because those aren't examples from the main plot" when they are obviously equal in importance for the game as the main plot is.

Besides, people being abducted for human experiments and to be liquefied into building materials for a grotesque cyborg god isn't dark?

What I'm saying, and apparently failing to put clearly into words, is that:

1)I consider the side stories of each of your squad mates a separate part of the story from Mass Effect 2. Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that information is part of the story. The side stories are their own separate stories with which their own individula games could be established. The story of Mass Effect 2 and the stories of each character are separate and distinct.

2)Those side stories are darker and grittier than Mass Effect 1, but the main story of Mass Effect 2 is not. The side stories make this a darker game, overall. However, because the side stories of Mass Effect 2 are not part of the main story, they cannot be included in a justification of a darker main story. The story of Mass Effect 2 (the story, not it's character's stories) is not relevant to an examination of the side stories

3)Overall, the entirety of Mass Effect 2, including all the stories, is a darker and grittier experience than Mass Effect 1. The only reason the main story of Mass Effect 2 could be considered darker would be because they show people die. The main story of Mass Effect 2 is about as dark and gritty as the main story of Mass Effect 1.

I know my view is extreme, but that is the way I see it. I am not trying to persuade. Just state. I choose to see the overall story as separate from the side stories for comparative purposes.

 

[Axeli]

snip

I'm not saying i didn't love the game. I actually haven't put it down since i got it. I loved the back stories too. Especially Miranda's and Garrus'. I just wouldn't classify them as part of the main story.

If that is how you define them, then the main story is decidedly much,much darker than in the first Mass Effect.

I just don't see why'd you put so high wall between the main plot and side stories that you'd not consider them being dark and gritty the same as Mass Effect 2 being dark and gritty. I don't get the reasoning "Mass Effect 2 isn't dark because those aren't examples from the main plot" when they are obviously equal in importance for the game as the main plot is.

Besides, people being abducted for human experiments and to be liquefied into building materials for a grotesque cyborg god isn't dark?

What I'm saying, and apparently failing to put clearly into words, is that:

1)I consider the side stories of each of your squad mates a separate part of the story from Mass Effect 2. Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that information is part of the story. The side stories are their own separate stories with which their own individula games could be established. The story of Mass Effect 2 and the stories of each character are separate and distinct.

2)Those side stories are darker and grittier than Mass Effect 1, but the main story of Mass Effect 2 is not. The side stories make this a darker game, overall. However, because the side stories of Mass Effect 2 are not part of the main story, they cannot be included in a justification of a darker main story. The story of Mass Effect 2 (the story, not it's character's stories) is not relevant to an examination of the side stories

3)Overall, the entirety of Mass Effect 2, including all the stories, is a darker and grittier experience than Mass Effect 1. The only reason the main story of Mass Effect 2 could be considered darker would be because they show people die. The main story of Mass Effect 2 is about as dark and gritty as the main story of Mass Effect 1.

I know my view is extreme, but that is the way I see it. I am not trying to persuade. Just state. I choose to see the overall story as separate from the side stories for comparative purposes.

1. Maybe so but Mass Effect 2 (not the main plot of it) is not distinct from the sides stories. The side stories make most of this game after all.

2. This is only true if you ignore the side stories completely in ME2 canon, and I don't see why anyone would want to do that. They are in the same setting and all canon. Also, as I said Mass Effect 2 is darker and grittier, not "Mass Effect 2's main plot specifically is darker and grittier".

3. Whatever.

Because the side stories make vastly greater part of the game, the fact that they are dark makes the game dark overall.

 

[ShakesZX]

snip

I'm not saying i didn't love the game. I actually haven't put it down since i got it. I loved the back stories too. Especially Miranda's and Garrus'. I just wouldn't classify them as part of the main story.

If that is how you define them, then the main story is decidedly much,much darker than in the first Mass Effect.

I just don't see why'd you put so high wall between the main plot and side stories that you'd not consider them being dark and gritty the same as Mass Effect 2 being dark and gritty. I don't get the reasoning "Mass Effect 2 isn't dark because those aren't examples from the main plot" when they are obviously equal in importance for the game as the main plot is.

Besides, people being abducted for human experiments and to be liquefied into building materials for a grotesque cyborg god isn't dark?

What I'm saying, and apparently failing to put clearly into words, is that:

1)I consider the side stories of each of your squad mates a separate part of the story from Mass Effect 2. Just because they are part of the game doesn't mean that information is part of the story. The side stories are their own separate stories with which their own individula games could be established. The story of Mass Effect 2 and the stories of each character are separate and distinct.

2)Those side stories are darker and grittier than Mass Effect 1, but the main story of Mass Effect 2 is not. The side stories make this a darker game, overall. However, because the side stories of Mass Effect 2 are not part of the main story, they cannot be included in a justification of a darker main story. The story of Mass Effect 2 (the story, not it's character's stories) is not relevant to an examination of the side stories

3)Overall, the entirety of Mass Effect 2, including all the stories, is a darker and grittier experience than Mass Effect 1. The only reason the main story of Mass Effect 2 could be considered darker would be because they show people die. The main story of Mass Effect 2 is about as dark and gritty as the main story of Mass Effect 1.

I know my view is extreme, but that is the way I see it. I am not trying to persuade. Just state. I choose to see the overall story as separate from the side stories for comparative purposes.

1. Maybe so but Mass Effect 2 (not the main plot of it) is not distinct from the sides stories. The side stories make most of this game after all.

2. This is only true if you ignore the side stories completely in ME2 canon, and I don't see why anyone would want to do that. They are in the same setting and all canon. Also, as I said Mass Effect 2 is darker and grittier, not "Mass Effect 2's main plot specifically is darker and grittier".

3. Whatever.

Because the side stories make vastly greater part of the game, the fact that they are dark makes the game dark overall.

Agreed. The game overall is darker. The main story is not.

 

[Axeli]

snip

Agreed. The game overall is darker. The main story is not.

My main problem with your original post was that you said the grittiness of the game was superficial, anyway, not the semantics about what exact parts in the game are dark.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Well, ME2 completely ditched the whole "RPG" thing to cater to the ADD Xbox masses and I think Game Informer seemed to like that. Oh and ME2 was more popular so therefore got a better review.

 

[Altorin]

Mass Effect 2 IS better then its predecessor. By miles. As someone who's got all of the achievements in ME1 and who's played it "100%" about 10 times, lemme tell you, when you strip it down, ME1 isn't nearly as fun a game as ME2 was.

I haven't played Bioshock 2, but it doesn't seem to live up to Bioshock 1 in terms of story, but it does seem to improve on its gameplay, mostly in variety. I definitely want to play it though.

I hate weighted Review scores. Game Informer is one of the worst at it. 8.25 should be a decent score. unweighted (putting 5 as average instead of 7), I wouldn't put Bioshock any higher then that.

edit: and to everyone else, what constitutes a side story? I mean, everyone says this and that about Mass Effect's side stories.. To me, there aren't many "side stories" in ME2. ME2 is ABOUT collecting a team and making them loyal, that's what Shepard is setting out to do in the first place. All of the character specific missions (all 21 of them), are part of the main story.

 

[Amarok]

WHo cares if some magazine gave some game a higher rating than another? They're not law.

If you think both games deserved a 9, then you rate them that in your own head. After all, whose opinion matters than your own when it comes to these things?

 

[Nouw]

I haven't played either ( stupid computer!) yet so I can't have a say

Right.

BUT I think Bioshock 2 deserves a higher rating.

But...you just said...

I'm joking. I haven't played Bioshock 2 (and I won't) and only played up to the crazy doctor in the first game before my heart gave out. I'm a wuss and can't handle that much relentless tension. I did watch a friend play some, and saw a lot of the big plot points.

Don't let Game Informer break your hearts. I'm not going to say game reviews are useless, as I use them quite a bit. Why blindly spend $60? More importantly than the number they give is what is WRITTEN. Much of what I've read and heard about Bioshock 2 is that it is so familiar that it kills the mystery that was ever-present in the first game. That, and Bioshock 1 didn't demand a sequel, so there's not quite the anticipation (for most people) as there was for Mass Effect 2.

2 words: Youtube

Because it's exactly like actually playing them.

Also: That's just one word.

Fine, 1 word: Youtube

 

[DustyDrB]

Well, ME2 completely ditched the whole "RPG" thing to cater to the ADD Xbox masses and I think Game Informer seemed to like that. Oh and ME2 was more popular so therefore got a better review.

Stripped away the RPG elements because of what? If you mean because they changed how you level up in ME2 compared to ME1, they just moved a lot of the leveling to the Research portion of the game, giving you more options and more freedom to how you level. Obviously the dialogue portion of the game was still present and actually strengthened in ME2. I just want to know how you think ME2 is completely stripped of it's RPG elements compared to ME1.

 

[reg42]

I haven't played Bioshock, but from what I understand (feel free to correct me) ME2 offers a lot more than Bioshock 2, in terms of interactivity and storytelling.

 

[Ataxia]

Bioshock was really just a dumbed down version of System Shock 2 to begin with. FPS's rip off eachother alot as do most games so Bioshock 2 isn't much new really. Gameplay improvements are nice but it pulled a reverse of what most games do I mean worse voice acting worse story I can understand BUT HOW DID THEY GO BACKWARDS ON VOICE ACTING? Ah whatever I hear that ME2 mineral collection is more painful this time around. The only reason I think Bioshock 2 deserves a lower score is because it's just not different enough.

 

[Ataxia]

Haven't played Bioshock 2. However, I have received the opinions of a trusted source. His impression of Bioshock 2 was "It plays more like an over-sized expansion rather than a sequel. Basically the only changes were the levels, and that you are now playing as a Big Daddy." So if I simply used my opinion of Bioshock for Bioshock 2, then I'd score it in the 8.5~9 range.

Mass Effect 2 had some significant changes from the first. The complete elimination of inventory, the removal of Mako and the addition of planet scanning. Not to mention the extensive reworking of combat. My personal review score would be 9.0~9.5.

I think that one of the major picking points that a lot of reviewers had with Bioshock 2 was that it was nearly indistinguishable from the first. It's not exactly fair since the game is still of great quality, but it gives the player an overwhelming sense of "been here, done that" and kind of detract the reviewers from actually enjoying the game. Since the reviews are ultimately based on how much fun the reviewers had, that "been here, done that" feeling can drag down the overall score a lot.

Sort of like what Valve did with L4D2? According to what I heard it's alot better then the first one but it's really more of the same.

 

[The Heik]

Overall, I felt that Mass Effect 2 was a huge improvement over the original in every way... except for mineral collection... its a bit hard to tell which game made it more tedious.

The scanner. At least the Mako had the fun of rolling over the hills and killing baddies with the heavy cannon.

OT: Generally the trend is: the bigger the company the higher score you give it. Gaming sites get support by the gaming companies, and are expected to "lend a hand" when the company puts put a game out.

Or more likely it could also be *gasp* their own opinion?