What Do You Think of the New Bioshock Concept?
- Thread starter Shapsters
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's stupid. As I have pointed out many, many times before, BioShock is what I'd like to call a "flawed masterpiece" in that it has all the makings of an instant classic, but falls short in so many ways that it's hard for me to call it something of the sort. The ideas being presented in BioShock 2 are interesting, and the quality and execution of the game itself looks good (though never trust a trailer, obviously).
The problem is that BioShock 2 is a completely unnecessary game. The entire thing screams of a forced effort, one made not out of respect for the original but out of a desire for profit and for creating a franchise that can be drawn upon time and time again. The original BioShock, for all its weaknesses, has one very strong positive: it is an entirely self-contained experience. Most games set themselves up for sequels, have stories that never end or end poorly and with too many loose ends, have worlds that demand to be explained and explored more. BioShock, though, that game is entirely its own thing. We've seen all we need to of Rapture; the story has a beginning, middle and end that we witness within the game; the characters finish their business. There are no real loose ends, there are no unsolved puzzles, there are no deep dark hidden secrets waiting to be uncovered.
And so, when BioShock 2 tries to add on to what is already a whole piece, it can't help but looking like a third wheel or a second fiddle. Big Sister? Ugh. More mutated and messed-up Splicers? Oh boy. More of Rapture to see? Whoopee. All the familiar characters are back, despite having no compelling reason to be? Super. Brand new powers to utilise, despite no compelling narrative reason for them to exist? Sounds right.
Well, at least it's not as bad as it could be. Maybe they're saving the Little Brothers for BioShock 3.
The problem is that BioShock 2 is a completely unnecessary game. The entire thing screams of a forced effort, one made not out of respect for the original but out of a desire for profit and for creating a franchise that can be drawn upon time and time again. The original BioShock, for all its weaknesses, has one very strong positive: it is an entirely self-contained experience. Most games set themselves up for sequels, have stories that never end or end poorly and with too many loose ends, have worlds that demand to be explained and explored more. BioShock, though, that game is entirely its own thing. We've seen all we need to of Rapture; the story has a beginning, middle and end that we witness within the game; the characters finish their business. There are no real loose ends, there are no unsolved puzzles, there are no deep dark hidden secrets waiting to be uncovered.
And so, when BioShock 2 tries to add on to what is already a whole piece, it can't help but looking like a third wheel or a second fiddle. Big Sister? Ugh. More mutated and messed-up Splicers? Oh boy. More of Rapture to see? Whoopee. All the familiar characters are back, despite having no compelling reason to be? Super. Brand new powers to utilise, despite no compelling narrative reason for them to exist? Sounds right.
Well, at least it's not as bad as it could be. Maybe they're saving the Little Brothers for BioShock 3.
To those decrying the whole idea of a sequel existing: You realize this is the video game industry, right? Not the film industry? Something like 75% of all hot titles at any given moment are sequels, as opposed to what, 5% of all movies? The possibility of a sequel is always on the table; imagine if the makers of Super Mario Bros., Metal Gear Solid, or Half-Life had said that their game was "too perfect" to get a sequel (and believe me, they WERE popular enough in their own time that surely a lot of fans were at least thinking it) and refused to make one?
Personally, I don't think Bioshock was perfect by any means, as enjoyable as it was to play. Video game followups are as much upgrades as sequels, and the chance to improve on the formula and throw out what didn't work is usually welcome. Plus, I think we were all itching to explore more of Rapture, which is one thing we can count on.
So far, I hear that the multiplayer mode is very different from the rest of the game; from what I can gather so far, it's a prequel and you don't even play as the same character. So I have to wonder why it's even part of the same game. Valve wasn't hesitant about selling Half-Life 2: Deathmatch separately from the main game, and it took place in the same environments and everything. It would definitely help those who aren't interested in playing multiplayer at all to not feel like they paid for two games when they only wanted one. But at least we have separate teams working on the two modes, so it's not like the developers are banking on multiplayer being the only part worth putting effort into.
Personally, I don't think Bioshock was perfect by any means, as enjoyable as it was to play. Video game followups are as much upgrades as sequels, and the chance to improve on the formula and throw out what didn't work is usually welcome. Plus, I think we were all itching to explore more of Rapture, which is one thing we can count on.
So far, I hear that the multiplayer mode is very different from the rest of the game; from what I can gather so far, it's a prequel and you don't even play as the same character. So I have to wonder why it's even part of the same game. Valve wasn't hesitant about selling Half-Life 2: Deathmatch separately from the main game, and it took place in the same environments and everything. It would definitely help those who aren't interested in playing multiplayer at all to not feel like they paid for two games when they only wanted one. But at least we have separate teams working on the two modes, so it's not like the developers are banking on multiplayer being the only part worth putting effort into.