Eclectic Dreck said:
Plenty of people liked the game but public discourse eventually distilled itself into a handful of talking points.
1. The game need not have existed.
2. The game was undoubtedly weaker as a result of tacking on multiplayer that nobody cared about
3. The end of the game was markedly better than the start.
Where the first game was launched to unexpected success, the the fact that the second did as well as it did was mainly the result of hanging off the coattails of the first.
well, it WAS unnecessary, but it didn't really hampered the original one
1-System Shock 2 was also unnecessary (as far as I remember)
2-of course it was weaker, remember we're talking about BioShock here, and Bioshock 2 wasn't developed by the same people, so it wasn't expected to really improve on the first one when it comes to the story, that's something I liked, it didn't changed any of what was already established, but rather added on a couple of things, you know, details, like how did the big daddy's thing started, or how Andrew Ryan built Rapture
3-the multiplayer was of course tacked on, but I liked the way it was done, I mean, it does makes you play on skills more than, say, Call of Duty (you know, equipment hacking and shit). Half Life's Multiplayer was also tacked on, yet people liked it and it's still being played
now, keep in mind, I'm not arguing whether you're right or not, just giving my views on this (so I can feel better at night T-T)