Is Bioshock 2 really as bad as we remember? (Spoilers)

[Easton Dark]

It didn't occur to me, before then, that the girls saw Rapture so differently.

Oh dude yeah, totally, me neither. I just assumed they saw it how it was and were numbed to the sights or something, but they actually see it in an idealized way. I wish I could have seen how they viewed big daddies, I imagine they're like teddy bears or something.

That was a great level.

 

[Agayek]

I never thought it was bad in the first place. Gameplay was far improved, I don't think many people would argue with that, and despite what others might say I liked B2's story better, as I actually felt like there was some LIFE in Rapture other than me and the few crazies.

My favorite part of gameplay was probably the reworked Insect Swarm Plasmid. In the first game I never really used it because, well, it was kind of shit, but in the second game, at Insect Swarm 2, it's not only fun but powerful as well. That, and the Drill charge I spammed like nobody's business, as it made me feel like an angry freight train.

This. So much this.

I don't think I ever bothered to ever use any other weapons once I unlocked the charge. Get all the drill damage upgrades with the camera, all 5 Drill gene tonics (especially Drill Specialist), and proper use of plasmids and you become an invincible juggernaut of absolute destruction. It's bloody amazing, as long as you don't run out of gas for the drill.

 

[DragonKhan95]

Bioshock 2 is not a bad game. Nor is it an ok game, it is a brilliant game. People hold up bioshock to attack bioshock 2 but in reality playing bioshock 2 highlights massive flaws with bio1.

Bioshock 2 is simply the better game. For starters, it is a better TOLD story. The quality of the story is a subjective thing, and the "Would You Kindly" moment is brilliant conceived, but the games narrative has god awful pacing and a disappointing end. It's quite hard to justify that the pacing after Ryan's big moment is good. The story becomes stodgy and loses most of its punch and ultimately the ending is a cliched boss fight which jarrs heavily with the games cliche subverting narrative. Contrast with Bioshock 2 which has much better pacing and an ending which merges perfectly with the story. Yes Bioshock's story is cleverly written, but its nowhere near as consistent as Bioshock 2.

I don't think many people could also argue that the moral choices were better in Bioshock 1 than 2. Bioshock 1 has a simple moral choice system with a black and white ending, and has no subtlety. Bioshock 2 on the other hand has a genuinely well made moral choice system with clever outcomes. This leads to four narratively consistent endings, which correspond correctly to your choices.

Also Bioshock 2 has a much more believable cast characters, and attempts to give you a stronger emotional connection to the universe. Grace Holloway is a fantastic character. She is not a lunatic, a murderer or omnipresent voice booming ideological diatribes at us. She is human being caught up in the fall of rapture. She doesn't turn into a demon when you meet her, or a bullet tank. She simply stares you down, even though she is a defenseless old women. Also Stanley Poole, a conniving sleazebag who is responsible for your condition when faced doesn't turn cliche boss fight on your arse. He whimpers and begs for his life. These characters are much more believable and developed than any of the Bioshock 1 characters other than Ryan. Is Fontaine a believable character, up until his transformation maybe.

The gameplay is better,but thats not the only thing. It is ultimately a better told story which people like to ignore because it was "unnecessary", the most cop out criticism there is.

This website sums it up better than me to be honest

http://www.gamesradar.com/the-top-7-ways-bioshock-2-is-better-than-bioshock-1/

Rant Over

 

[Ishigami]

I never played it.
I think of it is a money grabbing sequel that was just made because everything nowadays has to be a franchise by law and not producing a sequel to game that was well received is a offence deserving of capital punishment.
Might have been good... I will never now and I don't want to know.

On a similar note Dead Space is also one game. I don't know what people mean when they talk about Dead Space 2 or 3... there is no Dead Space 2 or 3 in my time and space.

 

[Karoshi]

Where did all these people praising Bioshock 2 coming from? Finally dared to speak their opinion without the fear of getting flamed?

Personally, I found it to be a massive downgrade. The massive moodshift bothered me a lot, since there's almost no creepiness left and it kinda feels like a fairy palace underwater. It's beautiful, of course, but I prefered the old look. Besides, how can anything even try to creep you out if you are a goddamn Big Daddy in Terminator mode?

Ryan was a more interesting villain, the levels were darker and honestly, it just kinda bored me. In Bioshock it was hard to stop playing, whereas Bioshock 2 always made me wanyt to quit straight away.

 

[Pebkio]

Where did all these people praising Bioshock 2 coming from? Finally dared to speak their opinion without the fear of getting flamed?

Personally, I found it to be a massive downgrade. The massive moodshift bothered me a lot, since there's almost no creepiness left and it kinda feels like a fairy palace underwater. It's beautiful, of course, but I prefered the old look. Besides, how can anything even try to creep you out if you are a goddamn Big Daddy in Terminator mode?

Ryan was a more interesting villain, the levels were darker and honestly, it just kinda bored me. In Bioshock it was hard to stop playing, whereas Bioshock 2 always made me wanyt to quit straight away.

There see, you're one of the people I was ranting against. You're only talking about story and aesthetic in reference to a game. It's like you're trying to shove games into the same slot movies occupy.

The funny part is that I agree with you. Bioshock's story was better, Ryan was the better main villain, the setting was fresh at the time, and the mood was consistent. But all of those things could be said about movies. When talking about the merits of a game, it's actually pretty poor taste to just compare them as you would a different medium. This is not a book we're talking about, this not a movie we're talking about; we're talking about a game here.

You can be disappointed by the story once, but the gameplay can still be fun. My argument is that, due to more focus on tactical gameplay and gene tonic choices, Bioshock was more of an RPG than a shoot-them-in-face game... and that made it more fun to play.

 

[Captain Anon]

it was never bad it was just less scary apart from that all else was well

 

[Lightknight]

I played Bioshock 1 and 2 for the first time last year. If felt like DLC more than a second game. It wasn't awful, but it certainly felt... off as a Bioshock sequel, despite taking place in the same city.

FYI, Bioshock 1 is still VERY playable despite its age. My favorite of the two.

 

[michael87cn]

Bioshock 2 was a very fun game that much improved the combat of the first, that was all that I cared about and why I liked it.

 

[redmoretrout]

Of course it can! If a sequel adds nothing to the story or characters and actually to worsens the original story through pointless retcons and changes then it is doing a bad job. (See the Star Wars prequels) Bioshock was famous for its story, it was what elevated the game from a mediocre shooter (Personally I found the gameplay kinda lacking) to one of the best games of this generation. A hastily written sequel tacked on for no other purpose than to squeeze a few dollars out a franchise is bad, end of story.

But a game, as was my point, should be judged by more than just what you can also find in a book or a movie. Another point I made in my first "list" paragraph, was that 2K marin made the game feel less like a shooter and more like a fist person RPG. So while the story had to save the mediocre shooter "Bioshock", it didn't have to save the fun RPG "Bioshock 2".

I mean, really, if you're only in gaming for the stories, you might have better luck just reading books. I'm sure there's a novelization of Bioshock out there...

If a game's story is excellent, than fun gameplay is simply non-essential. Many of my favorite games do not have fun gameplay, but that doesn't matter because the story alone is enough to keep me interested. (Planescape:Torment and Walking Dead are examples of this.)

I consider the 1st Bioshock to be one of those games, the story was the single most enjoyable and defining thing of Bioshock. It's story set it apart from other games and made it great. Bioshock 2's story completely failed to live up to the first game. When a sequel fails to deliver the aspects of its predecessor which made its namesake great, it has failed.

 

[Pebkio]

I disagree entirely, if a game's story is excellent, than fun gameplay is simply not essential. Many of my favorite games do not have fun gameplay, but that doesn't matter because the story alone is enough to keep me interested. (Planescape:Torment and Walking Dead are examples of this.) I consider the 1st Bioshock to be one of those games, I it enjoyed because of the story. Bioshock 2's story completely failed to live up to the first game. And when a sequel fails to deliver the most enjoyable and defining aspect of its predecessor it has failed.

I'm going to still ask, then, why you're suffering through bad gameplay just to get at a story when books still exist? The good ones have got fleshed out, descriptive, settings with well-defined characters... because that's all they've got going for them. You can even get an audio recording of more popular ones if you don't feel like reading. They're also cheaper and usually last longer than any game that isn't an RPG.

Books - More Than Just for College (the more you know).

Sorry, gotta be serious. And I am being serious when I ask why you haven't just gone to books.

 

[Hap2]

I disagree entirely, if a game's story is excellent, than fun gameplay is simply not essential. Many of my favorite games do not have fun gameplay, but that doesn't matter because the story alone is enough to keep me interested. (Planescape:Torment and Walking Dead are examples of this.) I consider the 1st Bioshock to be one of those games, I it enjoyed because of the story. Bioshock 2's story completely failed to live up to the first game. And when a sequel fails to deliver the most enjoyable and defining aspect of its predecessor it has failed.

I'm going to still ask, then, why you're suffering through bad gameplay just to get at a story when books still exist? The good ones have got fleshed out, descriptive, settings with well-defined characters... because that's all they've got going for them. You can even get an audio recording of more popular ones if you don't feel like reading. They're also cheaper and usually last longer than any game that isn't an RPG.

Books - More Than Just for College (the more you know).

Sorry, gotta be serious. And I am being serious when I ask why you haven't just gone to books.

Possibly because books are not necessarily as interactive as a game? I love books as much as anyone, but not everyone plays games solely because of how they play; it is not a sin to prefer storytelling over gameplay.

Personally, I enjoy having a reason to play a specific game, otherwise, it feels as if I am simply killing time (of which I don't have a lot of to do so in the first place). I play and go back to games like Mass Effect, Paper Mario, Skies of Arcadia, Star Wars KotOR, and Bioshock because of their enthralling characters, stories, and worlds. I get the chance to play out an adventure for myself and interact with personalities that I cannot get from a book, nor a movie.

To me, Bioshock 2 felt forced, I couldn't get into it. The world and its characters bored me; I had zero reason to play the game, so I moved on to something else. Does that mean I think its a bad game? Not at all, but for me, story is just as important as how a game plays. If one or the other is severely lacking, I'm less likely to enjoy a game. An uninteresting or bad story, or a glitchy mess of a game: neither is very enjoyable. Good story and good gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive things, after all.

 

[Continuity]

It wasn't that bad but it wasn't good enough to stand out of the shadow of the original. Apart from the even worse mouse support I didn't have any big issues with it as a game, my main criticism would be the blatant milking of the original content.

 

[Karoshi]

Where did all these people praising Bioshock 2 coming from? Finally dared to speak their opinion without the fear of getting flamed?

Personally, I found it to be a massive downgrade. The massive moodshift bothered me a lot, since there's almost no creepiness left and it kinda feels like a fairy palace underwater. It's beautiful, of course, but I prefered the old look. Besides, how can anything even try to creep you out if you are a goddamn Big Daddy in Terminator mode?

Ryan was a more interesting villain, the levels were darker and honestly, it just kinda bored me. In Bioshock it was hard to stop playing, whereas Bioshock 2 always made me wanyt to quit straight away.

There see, you're one of the people I was ranting against. You're only talking about story and aesthetic in reference to a game. It's like you're trying to shove games into the same slot movies occupy.

The funny part is that I agree with you. Bioshock's story was better, Ryan was the better main villain, the setting was fresh at the time, and the mood was consistent. But all of those things could be said about movies. When talking about the merits of a game, it's actually pretty poor taste to just compare them as you would a different medium. This is not a book we're talking about, this not a movie we're talking about; we're talking about a game here.

You can be disappointed by the story once, but the gameplay can still be fun. My argument is that, due to more focus on tactical gameplay and gene tonic choices, Bioshock was more of an RPG than a shoot-them-in-face game... and that made it more fun to play.

Games are not a monolithic experience, they offer many different things to enjoy and as such, opinions wary what aspects of a game are the most important ones. I grow wary of people telling me "Gameplay is the most vital one, cause it's a GAME, duh."

A game is a sum of many parts, but foremost it's an experience. For me, combat is the most forgettable one, whereas the story and setting grabs me by my heart and doesn't let me go. Do I have an obligation to enjoy gamplay? Do I have a duty to enjoy fighting and shooting? Because in most cases I don't.

You say that books and movies are perfectly fine for telling stories and they are, but games offer an unique take. They make the story personal, offer you choice and give you (however limited) freedom. You feel that games are nevertheless a weak storytelling medium and that's alright. Still, I love it.

I have and always will value atmosphere, setting and story above gameplay. There is a great variety of gaming genres and a big number of completely different games. There is place for people who love gameplay and for those who don't. I do not see why we have to argue about what makes a game and what aspect should be the most important one.

 

[Truek]

Bioshock 1 > 2 anyday for me.

That's not to say I hated it because I love Rapture, it was just a sub par sequel to Bioshock 1 with a lazy half ass'd multiplayer slapped on. However I would much rather play Bioshock 2 than say Dragon Age 2, so it wasn't all bad.

 

[hermes]

Bioshock 2 was not bad, it was just unnecessary.

The first game closed the story pretty tightly, and had the extra appeal of exploring a weird, mysterious and unfamiliar place. Because of that, the second game was meant to feel less interesting by default. The part that makes you play as a Big Daddy, but still keep all the features of the original makes it be less well-thought (after all, how many times did we see a Big Daddy in Bioshock 1 scavenging for food and money, using plasmids and vita-chambers, and killing little sisters) didn't help.

It also suffered from a lot more repetition than Bioshock 2. The big sister was only introduced to have something over you in the food chain, but it was never explained, it was extremely predictable, the encounters lacked tension and the cycle became tedious soon. At first, I thought she was going to be a unique encounter that would harass me throughout the game and her presence would be explained into the story (like Nemesis in RE3), but it turns out she is never really explained, she only appears when and where I chose to, and there are dozens of those things.

However, the combat is better than the first one and the story gets interesting near the end (not as good as Bioshock 1, but good on its own right), and a mediocre Bioshock is still a lot better than 90% of the FPS games out there. Also, they had the superb Minerva's Den DLC, which is an unconnected, well written story in a compressed Bioshock experience.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I never got a chance to play Bioshock 2, I was kind of disappointed by Bioshock 1 and thus was not motivated to try it. But every impression I've gotten from reading about it just makes me more disinterested.

But Infinite is looking very intriguing (and sporting a protagonist who looks like he is actually involved in the story rather than a half-assed faceless dude who is supposed to be a character)

 

[Sgt Pepper]

I liked both BS1 and 2 but I will say I much preferred playing as Subject Delta than I did Jack Ryan; Delta developed more as a character whilst Jack was simply a puppet. Also I loved the relationship between Delta and Eleanor.

I think BS1 is possibly more highly regarded as it broke new ground at the time (Seeing Rapture for the first time in BS1 was always going to be more amazing than seeing it a second time in BS2) and had a sharper concept, playing off from the Randian concepts as it did. But 2 was a much warmer game in terms of character and storyline.

 

[DaedricDuke]

I never played the first one(BURN THE HERETIC!).
But I thought BioShock 2 was incredible and completely sucked me into the universe.
It was the free and tense combat that really did it for me.

 

[AkaDad]

I think gamers give story too much emphasis when it comes to games. If gameplay isn't your first concern, then I'd argue that you're doing it wrong. Mario, Donkey Kong, Pac Man, and Limbo didn't need stories to be fun.

If the Bioshock games had no story, would they still be fun to play? Yes, which is why Bioshock 2 is a good game.