In defense of Bioshock 2.....

[Nomanslander]

Ken Levine is considered as one of the great talents amongst video game developers, he was behind the development of the well received but poorly marketed System Shock 2, and since he no longer had the rights for a third installment decided to remake System Shock the way he saw fit....or should I say commercially fit.

The results were of course Bioshock, which even thought for all it's praise was a dumbed down version to suit more a long the lines of casual gamers.

Ken Levine is known for his writing of good story lines even thought the plot can seem shifty, building of atmosphere, and pacing, but unfortunately wasn't behind the development of BS2 in anyways.

Here lies the biggest problem with the game, the major leading talent that was behind the first wasn't around a second time, this is why the story and pacing felt absent and why it felt more like an expansion than a stand alone title.

But to be honest, BS2 has way more replay value than the first game, for once the combat felt alive and the gameplay was excellent.

As hard as I try I can't go back to BS1, the gameplay really sucks now in comparison, and the story feels more like a Scooby Doo mystery than a well conceived and intelligent plot.

Even though there's a lot of you BS1 fans that called it sacrilegious making a BS sequel, I can't help but to laugh how a lot of older SS2 fans felt the same way about your game.

Honestly, I'm glad this game is being turned into a franchise, it'll give it a better chance to expand and hopefully rise to better things.

In the end, BS1 was nothing more than a rip off of an earlier better game, and since the first playthough has lost all its value even in the story department considering how cliched and dumb the plot twist ended up seeming. Even though the story and plot in the second game was no different plus badly implemented, I will say this, for once the story was actually touching.

 

[Danz D Man]

You seem to do less defending of Bioshock 2 and more bashing Bioshock 1.

 

[ultrachicken]

I personally thought the story was crap

 

[Jandau]

I wasn't under the impression that Bioshock 2 needed defending...

Seriously, with nearly universal critical acclaim, good sales, superior basic gameplay and positive reactions from many gamers, the game seems to be doing quite well and doesn't need anyone apologizing for it.

It's not as fresh as BS1 was when it came out and the villain isn't as memorable, but it also has better pacing and I actually didn't have trouble playing this one through, while I could never bother with the last act of BS1.

Also, while the story and the villain don't measure up to BS1, they are still superior to most of the crap being pushed out lately. So while BS1 might have gotten an A for the story and setting, BS2 gets a B-. It's still pretty damn good.

 

[Jark212]

I wasn't under the impression that Bioshock 2 needed defending...

I was under the same impression, it had a fairly solid story and most importantly was fun... Especially with the addition of the new and very attractive enemy:

Spoiler

 

[Jekken6]

I'm still going through Bioshock 2, but I think the gameplay is better than the first and the story (so far) is almost as good.

 

[Pearwood]

I've not heard anyone seriously say it's bad, it's maybe a little stupid that they suddenly let you play as a big daddy but it's an ok system. Don't think there's any need to defend it.

 

[About To Crash]

I suppose a big part of it is knowing the different audiences that the game reached. I've never been a PC gamer because my parents didn't feel the need for anything more than 3.1 last year, so I knew it'd be impossible to keep up. Anyway, when Bioshock graced the console market it was the most beautifully written story I'd seen in an FPS until that point, and I think this may have been the same for many others.
Also, Bioshock deserves massive praise for Rapture. How the developers treated Rapture was beautiful. Yes, technically you were not there for all of the drama and big action that would have happened to the city, but that's part of the beauty. It's an entire wonderful story that you uncover, you're part of it. You can learn all the intricate little plot details and figure out just how the city came to the sorry state it's in. That is the kind of almost hidden plot that I enjoy.
In Bioshock 2, we have the same setting. Chances are if you're playing Bioshock 2, then you've played the first, and so you know how the city got to the way it is. Any changes from the end of the first game can only be smaller. It's the rise and fall of a mighty empire, a King dethroned, a world destroyed, it's beautiful. But then here comes someone without the dreams to have created the city, someone who can not hope to match up to Andrew Ryan or Atlas, mostly beacause they're carrying on from the shattered remains of a dream already failed.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

In the end, BS1 was nothing more than a rip off of an earlier better game,

When it's done by the same designer, chances are it's going to be a similar game.

No one gives about Elvis using the same three chords in around 20 songs.

I don't think Bioshock was a rip off of System Shock. The name alone implies that it was a spiritual successor to it, and more of a tribute.

 

[jamesworkshop]

1. PC Games: BioShock 2 (2010) 89
2K Games

2. Playstation 3: BioShock 2 (2010) 88
2K Games

3. Xbox 360: BioShock 2 (2010) 88
2K Games

metacritic
Bioshock 2 doesn't need defending the gameplay is improved in every area and the story had a far better conclusion, The orginal story in reguards to Jack was pretty lame and worse than the story between Delta, Lamb and Elanor however the actual story in the original IMO is really only about rapture itself and its inhabitants and thats is far more engaging than what bioshock 2 has to offer lacking characters like Steinman and Sander Cohen.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I wasn't under the impression that Bioshock 2 needed defending...

I was under the same impression, it had a fairly solid story and most importantly was fun... Especially with the addition of the new and very attractive enemy:

Spoiler

Amussingly one of the user critics on metacritic did list the sexualisation of the Big Sister as a negative of the game and quite frankly I have no idea what they are on about unless people have fetishes for medical braces plus the actual body lacking a discernable gender

 

[Bat Vader]

I don't really think Bioshock 2 needs defending. Some people are going to like it and some people are going to dislike it. Nothing can really be done about that.

I thought Bioshock 1 was great. The story got a bit odd later on but considering that it takes place in a city under the sea during 1959. I can forgive it for getting a bit odd.

I rented Bioshock 2 and I still think Bioshock 1 has excellent game-play. I have no problem playing through it again.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

I wasn't under the impression that Bioshock 2 needed defending...

I was under the same impression, it had a fairly solid story and most importantly was fun... Especially with the addition of the new and very attractive enemy:

Really? I thought the big sisters were a horrible addition, seeing as all they did was make me waste ammo and annoy the hell out of me.

But the gameplay seemed alright, aside from the fact that I'm the weakest big daddy in existence, however the story did suffer quite a bit.

 

[De Ronneman]

You seem to do less defending of Bioshock 2 and more bashing Bioshock 1.

I personally thought the story was crap

The first 2 posts perfectly describe my feelings about:
a) Your "defense", and;
b) Bioshock 2

YES: System Shock 2 ruled, and BioShock was a BIG lot like it
YES: When there's a sequel, the first game always seems a tad shoddy afterwards. It's natural, since some annoyances are removed.
YES: removing a great mind from a productionprocess was a bad idea.
NO: the outcome didn't suck.
and finally: YES: the story was lacking, but what'dd you expect, to see the son of Fontaine rise to power? Have a Big Daddy running the show, good option, since they realised the popularity and let you play one...

Also, does anyone find it somewhat odd that BioShock's abreviation is BS, and I seriously read some post(not sure where exactly anymore, but on this forum too) that went like this:
"OMG, BS is great!", "I love BS", and even this: "I really games were more like BS"
When taken out of context, thatsounds really stupid...

 

[JokerCrowe]

It seemed to me like the developers sacrificed excellent story for excellent gameplay in the sequel, so I guess it comes down to what you want from a game. That being said, Bioshocks story was really, really good and the gameplay in BioShock 2 is certainly better than the first game's (and a lot of other games) but Bs2 doesn't go as far with the gameplay as bs1 did with the story. I still like BS2 better, but that might be because I had the first game spoiled for me...

 

[MetaKnight19]

It doesn't need defending since it's a damn good game. The one area where I think it was lacking a bit was the story, for me it just doesn't have the same sense of atmosphere as the first game. The emphasis for the first game was very much story, and it told it very well, the way the game played was OK but not excellent.

The sequel definitely improved on the gameplay front though. Overall I liked both games, but if I had to pick a favourite it would probably be the first one, mostly down to the better story and atmosphere. (even if the hacking minigame is dreadfully dull and awful)

 

[chozo_hybrid]

You seem to do less defending of Bioshock 2 and more bashing Bioshock 1.

Beat me to the punch, that's more or less what I was going to say here.

 

[Vrex360]

I disagree but respect your opinion.
Honestly for me regardless of the quality or lack there of in Bioshock 2, I still felt that there was no need for a sequel, this was something I thought when I first heard there would be a Bioshock 2.
The thing is, I loved the story of Bioshock and exploring the very real world of Rapture felt like a treat, it was fun, charming, atmospheric, immersive and imaginative but it was also in every sense of the word completely self contained.
I actually liked the combat and gameplay of Bioshock down to the finest details because I had never bfore played an FPS that allowed the use of bees and it was implimented quite well. Point is, I never played System Shock 2 fully so I never got the gyst as to why it was so popular and in that regard why Bioshock was so 'dumbed down' I just never got it.

Ultimatley though I loved Bioshock for the story and atmosphere and I just get the feeling that adding another plot to something that had a complete backstory, history and resoultion just feels kind of pointless, regardless of whether that story was good quality.
To me, that would be like a sequel to Juno where she gets knocked up a second time, it just seems a wee bit reduntant to continue things that had a clear defined end, Bioshock didn't end on a cliffhanger nor did it leave any hints for continuation it had an ending and honestly I would prefer to hold onto this mental image of a single great game that ended perfectly then to soil that with a sequel.
I hate to have to (in a sense) quote Yahtzee but it really is true for me here, a sequel like Bioshock 2 can only diminish the effect of the original

Of course, this is just me talking. I mean no offence to any would be fans of Bioshock 2, I'm sure the gameplay is pretty fun and I'm not a renowned genius on the matter, just for me personally, these are my feelings on the matter.

 

[john_nova]

Bioshock 1 in my opinion wasn't something you couldn't play again. But Bioshock 2 though seemed like something nobody should play. The linear gameplay in 1 was barely noticeable while it was obvious in 2. To me the game had a great feel when it was also just one Big sister it would've made moments where they are just swimming in the water more meaningful than oh when do I kill that one.

 

[squid5580]

I wasn't under the impression that Bioshock 2 needed defending...

Seriously, with nearly universal critical acclaim, good sales, superior basic gameplay and positive reactions from many gamers, the game seems to be doing quite well and doesn't need anyone apologizing for it.

It's not as fresh as BS1 was when it came out and the villain isn't as memorable, but it also has better pacing and I actually didn't have trouble playing this one through, while I could never bother with the last act of BS1.

Also, while the story and the villain don't measure up to BS1, they are still superior to most of the crap being pushed out lately. So while BS1 might have gotten an A for the story and setting, BS2 gets a B-. It's still pretty damn good.

It does need defending since it is getting ripped a new one lately. The thing is the OP failed to even mention the DLC (disc locked content).