will1182 said:
I'll have to agree with many others here and say Bioshock. If you're going to do an unecessary sequel, at least make it better than the first. Since that would be physically impossible in Bioshock's case, it's only natural that it was disappointing.
Despite how great the sequel was, it can't compare to the original, which will always be a standalone game in my heart.
Okay... sorry, but why?
Bioshock was a great game don't get me wrong, but II was simply amazing!
They plot tied in to the first game without too many glaringly obvious plotholes as well as expanding and bringing to light the whole idea behind the "WYK" agent.
They expanded on the world of rapture further and introduced new enemies as well as reintroduced old (goddamn did they beef up the spider splicers!).
Using the big daddy was just awesome, the drill mechanics (the fuel was a stroke of genius), the dual wielding plasmids and guns at the same time. The gameplay mechanics were so much improved from the first game as well as hacking was so much more interesting and yet still a challenge.
Not once did the game feel like a retread through rapture.
Bioshock II in many ways is easily far superiour to the first game and I would easily give it game of the year (so far, c'mon diablo III!).
In fact, my only one gripe would have to be that everytime you visited the Gene Bank, your plasmid order on the f1, f2, f3 buttons etc, would get all screwed up and it made it awkward in a fight when I was trying to freeze someone only to get telekinesis because of the mixing up. Apart from that, my experience with bioshock II was almost good enough to rival that of System shock and System Shock II.
I had hoped mass effect II would be my game of the year, but that game was awful.
In any case, I'm curious as to your reasons for "agreeing" with everyone else on what was essentially one of the best Videogame sequels (probably) ever concieved.