I don't agree with this review. I don't know if it was a needed sequel, but I know this:
- I havent played through Bioshock 1, because in the middle of the game I was feeling that clipping my toe nails over a hot flatiron was a better way to spend my time, rather than playing this boring peace of good-looking wreckage.
- I played through Bioshock 2 without stopping even for a piss, all night long. I loved it.
Now, I don't know if the better and "amazing" part of Bioshock 1 comes after the moments I've played through, but I certainly don't find it as appealing as BS2. Maybe it's more of a my type of game (because I'm certain that the two games are not as identical as everyone says they are). Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Bioshock 1, I just think it's way-too repetitive. I liked BS2's story better too. It seemed much more dramatic and somewhat complete compared to BS1. Now, I do agree that the idea of the city being there after thatnumberofyearsthattheyvesaidinthegame and that crazy lady taking over the city and stuff - it is stupid, but if you stop paying atention to it and pay more atention just to the tiest that bind the protagonist, the girl and everything else... I think it's really good written. Plus I really like the idea of being somewhat overpowered.
But everyone's got they're own opinion, the review still was funny and enjoyable as ever.