explain how bioshock's gameplay was "broken" or "DOOM at best"
How isn't it.
You move around, you shoot guys with guns some of which are awesome some of which are broken dumb.
Oh look you can use the Shock plasmid in water to make MASSIVE DAMAGE. Gee innovation.
crysis is not innovative in the slightest (hey a special suit that makes you run faster, become invisible, or throw things with a great amount of force, you've never been able to do that in a game before)
gears of war is a third person shooter with a cover system but weapons that have all been done before (including an orbital laser that causes MASSIVE DAMAGE)
Look I don't know what you're trying to do, but saying "well sure this refined the system but who cares it's been done" really doesn't absolve Bioshock of basically being DOOMHD gameplay-wise. Sure. Let's go to some D&D-level shit about how nothing is innovative and aren't we all intellectual whack-offs but that doesn't change that Bioshock's gameplay was recycled and stale shit that easily could've been improved. It was simple shoot-till-it's-dead-and-nothing-else fare. There is no other way to paint it. Ice+shoot equals kill? Great. You're still shooting 'till it's dead.
i'm just taking issue with you using other games with comparatively shit story lines that also offer no significant improvement or twist on fps gameplay
don't just come into the thread to shit on the game
you didn't just shoot shit, you had to shoot off specific limbs. gears of war really took the cover system to the extreme.
khavall is saying that letting you kill shit with weapons that aren't guns isn't innovative. i'm not sure that i agree but i see where he's coming from.
Basically. But there's more. Want to rambo the fuck out? Go do that.
Want to snipe from forever away? Go do that.
Want to be predator? Go do that.
Want to be Some super machismo-awesome robot machine of destruction? Go do that.
Bioshock you're either Wrench jockey or shooty bitch. Crysis allows options. Bioshock pretends to while offering the choice between BFG and the Minigun.
I liked the game overall, but please let's not pretend that the gameplay was anything other than shit that needs to be fixed. I mean I guess if you really missed Wolfenstein 3D and needed more of that then Bioshock was some great gameplay.
you didn't just shoot shit, you had to shoot off specific limbs. gears of war really took the cover system to the extreme.
khavall is saying that letting you kill shit with weapons that aren't guns isn't innovative. i'm not sure that i agree but i see where he's coming from.
i'll agree that dead space pretty unique in its gameplay, and had great atmosphere to boot
gears just made cover an absolute necessity and added a button for it
bioshock's gameplay was pretty much watered down system shock but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun
OH MAN KHAVALL IS ARGUING AGAINST AN FPS FITTING IN THE GENRE DUDES LET'S BE ASSHATS ABOUT IT.
No. Khavall is arguing against using genre as a shield for dated shitty gameplay.
Fuck look at CoD4. The most time-locked of time-locked series in the world to the point where when real innovation rears its head they break off from the series and still at least that offered motherfucking crouching and motherfucking leaning and some goddamn set-pieces that weren't necessarily scripted in addition to the plot.
Bioshock was dated broken gameplay attached to a genius story. I loved the story. I loved the atmosphere. I loved everything about it save the fact that I was playing gen goddamn 1 FPSs while going from plot point to plot point.
you didn't just shoot shit, you had to shoot off specific limbs. gears of war really took the cover system to the extreme.
khavall is saying that letting you kill shit with weapons that aren't guns isn't innovative. i'm not sure that i agree but i see where he's coming from.
i'll agree that dead space pretty unique in its gameplay, and had great atmosphere to boot
gears just made cover an absolute necessity and added a button for it
bioshock's gameplay was pretty much watered down system shock but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun
yeah, when i was making the point i was mostly thinking about dead space vs bioshock, because they both have fantastic stories/gameplay, but i would put dead space ahead of bioshock because of the gameplay.
who cares about rapture post-bioshock? Not this guy
I wouldn't mind a game where you're a janitor or something trying to escape on new years, when shit went to shit
maybe have it take place over a longer period of time, get to see the lynch mobs form in the city up to the big clusterfuck
I was really hoping this would be the kind of approach they went for. Because as awesome as it looks and will probably be, the initial impact that made the first so excellent is lost.
Really though I loved every damn bit of the first one (until you don a certain suit that is). It is my all time favourite game and cant help but be excited, even though every part of me is sceptical.
Its kind of like with Matrix 1. I saw it and thought omg I want more, I love this. Then they gave me more, and it was exactly what I didnt want, sometimes when you flesh out a world it reveals how lucky the creators were the first time. Though im hoping the first wasnt a fluke, and since they admit the ending to the first was utter crap im quietly optimistic.
Prohass on
0
Options
VoranthMI NOMBRE, POR CIERTOES DONTÉ!Registered Userregular
edited April 2009
a bioshock game where you play as a janitor would be so awesome
the first few levels have you walking around using a ground-breaking physics engine to clean up spilled champagne bottles with no foreshadowing at all
I was really hoping this would be the kind of approach they went for. Because as awesome as it looks and will probably be, the initial impact that made the first so excellent is lost.
like Mass Effect the first Bioshock is so much better as a PC game, I'm not really sure why I bought it as a 360 title (and unlike Mass Effect, I actually had a choice.).
It's the voice actor more than anything. He just sounds so punchable.
He really doesn't.
I understand people's dislike of the game. Personally, I found it great, I loved playing it, and the ending was incredible. The fact that it garnered hate from people who, for 99% of them, disliked it because they weren't prepared for something so different, shows to me that it's just advanced to that point. Gamers who consider themselves Gamerz are as a rule dumb. Here we're smarter, but most of the criticism I've heard has still been from a game-focused problem... not from a wider view.
Anyways, my point is that I understand some of the problems. But the Prince VA nailed the fuck out of the part.
OH MAN KHAVALL IS ARGUING AGAINST AN FPS FITTING IN THE GENRE DUDES LET'S BE ASSHATS ABOUT IT.
No. Khavall is arguing against using genre as a shield for dated shitty gameplay.
Fuck look at CoD4. The most time-locked of time-locked series in the world to the point where when real innovation rears its head they break off from the series and still at least that offered motherfucking crouching and motherfucking leaning and some goddamn set-pieces that weren't necessarily scripted in addition to the plot.
Bioshock was dated broken gameplay attached to a genius story. I loved the story. I loved the atmosphere. I loved everything about it save the fact that I was playing gen goddamn 1 FPSs while going from plot point to plot point.
Bioshock's gameplay was not broken. In fact it was well done in almost every regard. Stop confusing a lack of innovation for a lack of quality. I happen to know that when games spuriously try to innovate nine times out of ten you end up with Timeshift or Turok or some other bullshit. COD4 was good because it didn't try anything new. Infinity Ward have developed an incredibly tight and well produced system for their games that is consistently fun. Why break that to add in another bullet point on the back of the box?
Similarly with Bioshock, it was a simplified System Shock in most regards, sure, but that doesn't mean it was bad. The freedom to combat was satisfying and while clearly not the focus of the game (which put more emphasis on narrative and environments), it was passable and facilitated a steady progression through the game. Other than a third act blip which is neither here nor there, the game was incredibly well paced in terms of plasmid progression and weapon variety. And the enemies were varied enough to never become overly repetitive. Even in Fort Frolic where they specifically lock you in for a meatgrinder it wasn't a grind. Mixing things up with dumb video game cliches like 'flamer splicers' or 'exploding splicers' or whatever would have broken from the narrative which was so strongly tied to the games success.
To say Bioshock was dated gameplay is pure nonsense. It isn't exactly the pinnacle of FPS gaming, I'll agree. Then again, while in comparison to say a Halo 3 for a richness of variety and scope, it more than makes up for that with atmosphere and story. It sacrificed aspects of game design that are usually used as filler to make up for a weak plot and filled it with a decent story and a gripping environment. There are sections of Bioshock where you go maybe 20-30 minutes without any combat. For that to happen in Halo 3 would be unheard of and would surely have shown you that if you expected Bioshock to be an FPS other than in name only, you are pretty dumb and have ridiculous expectations.
Posts
They are shooting in an FPS
The fuck is this bullshit
shoot things until they're dead
i'm just taking issue with you using other games with comparatively shit story lines that also offer no significant improvement or twist on fps gameplay
don't just come into the thread to shit on the game
Good job all.
you didn't just shoot shit, you had to shoot off specific limbs. gears of war really took the cover system to the extreme.
khavall is saying that letting you kill shit with weapons that aren't guns isn't innovative. i'm not sure that i agree but i see where he's coming from.
what were those devs thinking
Basically. But there's more. Want to rambo the fuck out? Go do that.
Want to snipe from forever away? Go do that.
Want to be predator? Go do that.
Want to be Some super machismo-awesome robot machine of destruction? Go do that.
Bioshock you're either Wrench jockey or shooty bitch. Crysis allows options. Bioshock pretends to while offering the choice between BFG and the Minigun.
I liked the game overall, but please let's not pretend that the gameplay was anything other than shit that needs to be fixed. I mean I guess if you really missed Wolfenstein 3D and needed more of that then Bioshock was some great gameplay.
That'd be pretty cool.
Well, not cool, ultra nerdy.
But it'd be fun.
i'll agree that dead space pretty unique in its gameplay, and had great atmosphere to boot
gears just made cover an absolute necessity and added a button for it
bioshock's gameplay was pretty much watered down system shock but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun
No. Khavall is arguing against using genre as a shield for dated shitty gameplay.
Fuck look at CoD4. The most time-locked of time-locked series in the world to the point where when real innovation rears its head they break off from the series and still at least that offered motherfucking crouching and motherfucking leaning and some goddamn set-pieces that weren't necessarily scripted in addition to the plot.
Bioshock was dated broken gameplay attached to a genius story. I loved the story. I loved the atmosphere. I loved everything about it save the fact that I was playing gen goddamn 1 FPSs while going from plot point to plot point.
yeah, when i was making the point i was mostly thinking about dead space vs bioshock, because they both have fantastic stories/gameplay, but i would put dead space ahead of bioshock because of the gameplay.
And it does all of jack shit
YOU CROUCH
oh wait sorry i forgot that while crouching you shit magic bricks of gold in COD4 that instantly heal you. innovation, right?
Really? Because I once was hiding behind some sheet metal when some name-that-I-forget private dies from a bullet piercing my cover before I charged.
Not scripted. Just happened. War's hell and all that.
hey
hey pooro
Oh right, thought you were talking about all the actual set pieces.
oh well
supposedly there is more to this one's story than what we're being told right now, but who knows if that is true or not
who cares about rapture post-bioshock? Not this guy
I wouldn't mind a game where you're a janitor or something trying to escape on new years, when shit went to shit
maybe have it take place over a longer period of time, get to see the lynch mobs form in the city up to the big clusterfuck
I was really hoping this would be the kind of approach they went for. Because as awesome as it looks and will probably be, the initial impact that made the first so excellent is lost.
Really though I loved every damn bit of the first one (until you don a certain suit that is). It is my all time favourite game and cant help but be excited, even though every part of me is sceptical.
Its kind of like with Matrix 1. I saw it and thought omg I want more, I love this. Then they gave me more, and it was exactly what I didnt want, sometimes when you flesh out a world it reveals how lucky the creators were the first time. Though im hoping the first wasnt a fluke, and since they admit the ending to the first was utter crap im quietly optimistic.
the first few levels have you walking around using a ground-breaking physics engine to clean up spilled champagne bottles with no foreshadowing at all
dudes all "am I even playing the right game"
PS4: Voranth
remember, you're playing as the FIRST big daddy
do you really think they won't be expanding on how you became the first big daddy?
PS4: Voranth
exactly
good luck duplicating the sub ride in
But I hope they can tighten some of the gameplay up.
https://medium.com/@alascii
man khavall stop hypocriticising bioshock
i imagine him furrowing his brow, pushing his glasses up his nose, trying to explain these concepts
here... we're smarter
we need to take... a wider view
Bioshock's gameplay was not broken. In fact it was well done in almost every regard. Stop confusing a lack of innovation for a lack of quality. I happen to know that when games spuriously try to innovate nine times out of ten you end up with Timeshift or Turok or some other bullshit. COD4 was good because it didn't try anything new. Infinity Ward have developed an incredibly tight and well produced system for their games that is consistently fun. Why break that to add in another bullet point on the back of the box?
Similarly with Bioshock, it was a simplified System Shock in most regards, sure, but that doesn't mean it was bad. The freedom to combat was satisfying and while clearly not the focus of the game (which put more emphasis on narrative and environments), it was passable and facilitated a steady progression through the game. Other than a third act blip which is neither here nor there, the game was incredibly well paced in terms of plasmid progression and weapon variety. And the enemies were varied enough to never become overly repetitive. Even in Fort Frolic where they specifically lock you in for a meatgrinder it wasn't a grind. Mixing things up with dumb video game cliches like 'flamer splicers' or 'exploding splicers' or whatever would have broken from the narrative which was so strongly tied to the games success.
To say Bioshock was dated gameplay is pure nonsense. It isn't exactly the pinnacle of FPS gaming, I'll agree. Then again, while in comparison to say a Halo 3 for a richness of variety and scope, it more than makes up for that with atmosphere and story. It sacrificed aspects of game design that are usually used as filler to make up for a weak plot and filled it with a decent story and a gripping environment. There are sections of Bioshock where you go maybe 20-30 minutes without any combat. For that to happen in Halo 3 would be unheard of and would surely have shown you that if you expected Bioshock to be an FPS other than in name only, you are pretty dumb and have ridiculous expectations.