Eh. The thing I didn't like about Bioshock 2 was that Lamb just felt so... Pathetic, really, compared to Ryan. I mean seriously - he built an entire city based on his ideals, and yes it failed, but to be able to do something that monumental shows just how visionary and powerful a character he is.
Whereas Lamb? She took over the dead shell of a city. A crumbling, ruined city, built by someone else, founded on ideals in total opposition to hers. What skill does that take? She didn't build anything. To use Ryan's terms, she is a parasite of the highest order, unable to make anything for herself, only able to scavenge off what is already there. I mean, even the vending machines still say
'Ryan Industries' on. She didn't even tear down the Objectivist posters - just put the odd scribbling about
'Rapture will be reborn!'.
That is my main problem with Bioshock 2. Ryan was the best thing about the first game, and an integral part of its story; whereas in Bioshock 2 we have Lamb, who took over someone else's destroyed city and didn't even do a very good job of fixing it up, and just feels completely at odds with the setting, rather than a part of it.
As for my unpopular opinions? Basically, this:
Triforceformer said:
Also that, while the pacing of the story and the overall scale was sadly rushed thanks to EA, Brutal Legend was fucking awesome. It made RTSes fun on consoles by not trying to be a watered down Starcraft with shittier controls. It really doesn't deserve to be another Cult Classic for Double Fine to add to the pile.
The problem with Brutal Legend was not that it was badly designed, or that it had random mechanics and genres thrown in without any consideration as to how they'd fit together. On the contrary, its mechanics are very well designed, and a lot of time and thought has been put into making the gameplay of the stage battles fluid and fun, and that is an undisputable fact.
No, the issue is that people didn't realize the semi-RTS aspects would be there due to EA refusing to talk about them in the marketing, in favour of making a huge deal about how Jack Black was involved; and the fact that Double Fine seemingly underestimated how difficult it would be for players to adapt to a new style of gameplay that they'd probably never seen before. However, once you get your head around how these battles work, and get over the initial spike on the difficulty curve, these battles are extremely enjoyable - that's how I found it, anyway.
How do I react to people with an opposing opinion? Generally by asking them how they played the stage battles in question. Because the game doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining how to play them successfully - I know this first hand because I sucked at them at first too.
If, like I did at first, they played them like a traditional RTS, flying in the air constantly and ordering troops around, but doing nothing else - ignoring the massive axe in their hand, the solos they'd collected, and the team-up attacks the game had spent so long hammering into them - I tell them that I was in the same situation, explain why they kept losing, and urge them to give the game another shot. Which always seems to elicit the response "well you've got your opinion and I've got mine" but whatever.
If, on the other hand, they were fully aware of these elements but still didn't enjoy the game, fair play to them. I'll agree to disagree.
. (That last bit is because I am british, therefore I naturally apologise for everything, sorry)
