The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
JamesKeenan, if I may offer some constructive critisism?
I'd walk away. Post your original thesis in the bioshock thread, see if it gets any reply, and leave it at that.
Most of the people posting in this thread have violated the forum rules as is, and it will probably be locked by the first mod that notices it. So no matter what happens from here, this thread is stillborn.
Your thoughts in the first post are quite thought-provoking, coming from a guy who has not played Bioshock. In fact, I checked the bioshock thread to see if you had posted them there, because they do deserve to be discussed.
But this thread is over, I hate to say.
*sigh*... you're probably right. No, no. You are right. I was kind of slapping myself already for not considering the AWOOOO thread as a discussion thread anyhow, and admittedly was sticking here out of stubbornness. Last post here, I'll take it to the discussion thread. I think I somewhere knew the damage was irreperable around the time of the "Lebowski" references.
JamesKeenan on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited August 2007
It's alright man. I think we all make similar mistakes around here in the early days.
I hope you enjoy your stay, and never, EVER judge a thread by its title around here.
Athenor on
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
The problem is frankly the gameplay. There were only three, arguably four (spider splicers) enemies, but that could slide. It's only an underwater city, not a Tolkien novel. However, the small variety of baddies to kill only contributed to the already existing sense of repetitiveness. (I definitely don't count the little sisters as bad guys, and I'm purposefully lumping the 4 machines into one group, because it was all the same thing. Zap, hack. I might have been more forgiving if it ever played different with them.)
The thing is, Bioshock doesn't really have less variety in enemies than most shooters. Heck, even take a look at Half Life 2. When you actually count the different types of enemies there's really not a huge variety there either. I mean, most of them were pretty much just identically proportionate humans in identical combine combat kit.
Now naturally, I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game by any means. But when it comes down to it, shooters in general really don't have a tremendous variety as far as enemies go, and alot of that comes down to design restrictions I'd suspect.
Frankly, the game played like a series of easter egg hunts. Concoct this potion, finish this masterpiece, build this suit. I must have spent a cumulative hour or two just back tracking, retracing my steps and trying to blindly explore to find a missed component, or find the one Big Daddy I missed. I remember one instance I was in a room with a cased component, and for the life of me couldn't find a way to open the case. I was hoping it'd be a wa that required a skill or weapon of mine, so I tried blasting it, ripping the door off via telekinesis. Nothing.
Again, this is a case of Bioshock being a shooter at heart. Shooters generally have a certain degree of linearity involved in order to present and advance the underlying narrative. With regards to the case you're thinking of - the case in question contained a fairly sizeable quantity of nitroglycerin. In this case, it would make sense to have the case fairly resistant to exterior kinetic force given the relatively volatile nature of its contents. As far as having the button to open the case hidden, it would make sense within the context of the setting to conceal access to a large quantity of explosives whilst in the middle of a civil war. Especially when an explosion might puncture the protective barriers and flood what is essentially, the city's electrical generator.
My point in all that isn't to emphasis and highlight one issue. The entire game can be analyzed likewise by asking different but similarly themed questions. Why on earth was that necessary? At times I was reminded of Perfect Dark: Zero's campaign mode. I was either left to myself the entire time to find inexplicably well-hidden items, or led around as if on a leash by the arrow, in which case I don't even know why I'd need to be in control of those parts of the game, other than to lead me through more of the three enemies, for gameplay's sake.
The thing is, what is the alternative really? When it comes to providing guidance to a potentially lost player there's not really a whole lot of options there. You can either try to provide the option of guidance, or you don't. In this case, obviously the designers felt it better to err on the side of caution and provide that guidance.
In any case, why was Bioshock worthy of its good reviews?
1.) A Unique Setting
I mean, really, when was the last time you played a game set in a slowly decaying underwater city wrecked by a civil war?
2.) A solid story
The story overall was very different than your usual material. For one, did you notice that for once the central character wasn't out to "save the world/universe/realm"? Ultimately, the goal of the game seems to be simple survival, with the option to save/destroy the remaining human survivors of the city.
3.) Great production values
As you yourself pointed out, the technical presentation of the game was excellent. Everything about the art, the sound - the environment in general contributed enormously to immersing the player in the game. Bioshock is the kind of game that really makes you wanna take a close look at the environment around you, because there's often some interesting information to be gleamed from it.
Now I'll admit, I'm not sure I agree with some of the perfect 10/10 scores that Bioshock has received from some sources. But it definitely deserves some high praise for frankly, being a damn fine shooter, especially when compared to alot of the more bland offerings that the genre often produces. I definitely think that it's way too early to hand it a game of the year award given some of the other games that are coming out this year.
On a bit of an off topic tangent, I'd probably dispute nominating Command and Conquer 3 for game of the year. Company of Heroes impressed me far more than Command and Conquer 3.
Operative21 on
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
I am James Keenan, and I'm here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to make a forum thread?
No, says the G&T rules. It belongs to the Bioshock thread.
No, says the G&T forumers. It belongs to us.
No, says the G&T mod. It belongs to locksville.
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...
Bioshock Overrated?
Lewisham on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
This thread isn't over until I have bathed in the blood of a thousand fallen angels.
More like it wont be over until someone does the "I CHOSE RAPTURE!" quote in relation to the bioshock threads.
Is a man not entitled to bitch as he chooses?
NO! says the Moderator it belongs to them!
NO! says SE++ it belongs to your cock!
NO! says Cardboard Tube it belongs to him!
I rejected those answers. Instead I chose to do something different. I CHOSE....NEOGAF!
It all depends on what you're into. I mean, I played Halflife 2 about a year after it came out and while I thought it was a great game, I didn't find it to be the be all end all that a lot of people made it out to be.
But I loved System Shock, so I'm pretty psyched for picking up Bioshock, once I can find a god damn copy of it.
The problem with your thread mate (besides the expected reaction from the PA faithful - see my sig for a comment from just such another thread) is that any game can be dissected this way. I'm sure I could find enough fault with Gameranking's #1 game Ocarina of Time.
Hell I hardly got out of the water and in to the lobby some 90 seconds in to the game and I was already knew I'd be buying it the next day.
But I get that others don't feel the same way.
In fact, I hate Tekken. I genuinely believe that it hasn't deserved 5-something sequels, and begrudge it for taking attention away from other fighting franchises. But I don't go making threads proclaiming as such because at the end of the day, people's differing tastes and priorities in what makes a game good or bad will affect how you see a game.
I just want to say I'm about halfway through the game and I'm feeling the same way the OP is. Which is wierd because I've always defended hyped games to death even when I know I'm wrong.
Yes, Bioshock was overrated, in my opinion. It was still a good game, though ...
I think the gaming industry has had such a terrible ratio of bad:decent:good:great games for the past 12 months (at least) that we're all starving for blockbuster or even semi-blockbuster titles that Bioshock was a scapegoat of sorts. I deserves good reviews, maybe even awesome reviews, but not second-coming-of-christ reviews (on another note, I think many of the games out that have 'good' reviews deserve 'not-so-good' reviews, and too many C games are getting Bs).
BS was one of the few games as of late where the developers seemed to spend more time in development and testing than most other games hoping on the "casual-gamer" train. Bioshock has a PC version that is more than a shitty console port - it is actually optimized and has much sharper textures! Why did developers stop doing these things?!
The plasmids were cool and all, but, it's been done before. Don't deserve the hype, in my opinion. Choice system was also overrated.
I liked the story very much, and loved the atmosphere, but I personally got a gnarly case of "Doom 3 Syndrome," where the shock-and-awe of the games dies down rather quickly and the gameplay becomes too repetitive.
I think Bioshock is getting especially great reviews for the same reason Jade Empire, Knights of the Old Republic, Gears of War, and LEGO Star Wars got good reviews. For all of these games, it's not really the gameplay that shines the brightest, it's a combination of graphics, attitude, story, style, charm, and the "cool" factor. For example, for me, the Grand Theft Auto-style games have terrible gameplay. They're not deep games where the gameplay is so full of little nuances that you could turn the game into a competitive sport ala Counter-strike or Starcraft, etc. But GTA has a lot of attitude and coolness to it that people like, so people boost up the score for those reasons.
Think of how people have chess tournaments or how we have millions of people taking the gameplay of football or soccer seriously. No one really looks at Bioshock, Jade Empire, KOTOR, GOW, or Lego Star Wars' gameplay and says "if you're good at those games, you must be a gifted cyber-athlete."
Gameplay wise, I'd put stuff like Counter-strike way, way ahead of Bioshock. But Counter-strike isn't anywhere near the "top 5 games of all time." Neither is any video game version of chess, or Tetris, or Dr. Mario, or whatever. They all have better gameplay, but they have no "soul" for people. People care about souls, personality, charm, and good looks more than gameplay. Not everyone wants something that actually challenges their skills. Most people just want to pull a lever and get triple 7s.
So yea, I think you might be like me, James, in that you often look at games like Bioshock in the same way you judge a sport such as football or baseball. Most people are not judging Bioshock in that way. They're looking at it in the same way you might judge a more "physically passive" media, such as a movie, a book, or a song. I think we're having this discussion to begin with because video games are usually a mix of sport and storytelling, which is something very unique about the medium. The fact that you brought up C&C3 and God of War 2 seems like a big indicator that you're more into games as "sports" than as storytelling/escapist mediums. To me, both of those games have better gameplay than Bioshock, but far inferior storytelling. Speaking for myself, I usually like games as "sports" than storytellers. The games I've played the most have been flight sims, RTS games, and multiplayer shooters. I also really enjoy "shmup" shooters like Ikaruga, and games like Ninja Gaiden and Onimusha. Games where, if i see someone doing extremely well at them, I'm truly impressed.
PS -- I think the PA forums are a bad place to talk about a game in-depth. Better to go to the game's official forums, or visit Gamespot/GameFAQ's forums (they give a forum to each game), if you want to get into discussions about specific topics.
edit: Guardian Legend: To say that Counter-Strike has better gameplay than Bioshock is...Jesus Christ, man. Jesus Christ. And your comment that people are judging it as passive media is nonsense. This game has excellent gameplay in addition to the ambiance.
I think it's very overrated. I find the actual gameplay lacklustre, you've seen pretty much everything 60-90 minutes in and it doesn't change from there. I also find most of the plasmids to be largely useless. Telekinesis remains a powerful tool, but things like Incinerate just become increasingly useless as you get further through the game.
The atmosphere and design is fantastic, but I too think it's blinded quite a few people of the games' faults. This isn't the second coming, it's a fairly standard FPS set in a fantastically realised world with lots of polish.
I think it's very overrated. I find the actual gameplay lacklustre, you've seen pretty much everything 60-90 minutes in and it doesn't change from there. I also find most of the plasmids to be largely useless. Telekinesis remains a powerful tool, but things like Incinerate just become increasingly useless as you get further through the game.
The atmosphere and design is fantastic, but I too think it's blinded quite a few people of the games' faults. This isn't the second coming, it's a fairly standard FPS set in a fantastically realised world with lots of polish.
People always make this argument when games like System Shock and Bioshock come out.
The fact is, the plasmids aren't "useless," they just aren't "required." You could get through the entire game without firing a single weapon, if you wanted to. That you and others are choosing to use weapons - likely because it is easier - doesn't make the plasmids useless. The designers don't have to provide an "and" condition - i.e. that plasmids AND weapons are required for combat - but they certainly provided an "or" condition.
You could get through the entire game with Enrage, Insect Swarm, Incinerate, Electro Bolt, and Security Target and never even pull out your wrench.
In short, this is a fairly standard FPS only if you choose to play it that way. The gameplay is very deep if you actually tap into it. This argument is like playing RPGs and always choosing a human fighter of average intelligence. Sure, you can get through the game that way. As long as you understand that you're missing out on a lot of other mechanics - magic for instance - and probably some content.
PS -- I think the PA forums are a bad place to talk about a game in-depth. Better to go to the game's official forums, or visit Gamespot/GameFAQ's forums (they give a forum to each game), if you want to get into discussions about specific topics.
Also, it's subjective. There's no point in discussing which or what is overrated, because it always, ALWAYS ends in a flamewar. Calling something popular overrated is insulting, and people don't like it, and it never turns out well. So don't. Just say you don't like it.
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
Also, it's subjective. There's no point in discussing which or what is overrated, because it always, ALWAYS ends in a flamewar. Calling something popular overrated is insulting, and people don't like it, and it never turns out well. So don't. Just say you don't like it.
Exactly. "I don't like this" is fine. "This is overrated" is an entirely different comment. You're basically saying "you're stupid for liking it so much."
Also, it's subjective. There's no point in discussing which or what is overrated, because it always, ALWAYS ends in a flamewar. Calling something popular overrated is insulting, and people don't like it, and it never turns out well. So don't. Just say you don't like it.
Posts
this is completely off-topic and might get me in trouble, but I absolutely love your sig.
I just wish it was a few pixels taller, so you could see it was actually a TIE Interceptor, and not some misformed abortion of a TIE.
*sigh*... you're probably right. No, no. You are right. I was kind of slapping myself already for not considering the AWOOOO thread as a discussion thread anyhow, and admittedly was sticking here out of stubbornness. Last post here, I'll take it to the discussion thread. I think I somewhere knew the damage was irreperable around the time of the "Lebowski" references.
I hope you enjoy your stay, and never, EVER judge a thread by its title around here.
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
The thing is, Bioshock doesn't really have less variety in enemies than most shooters. Heck, even take a look at Half Life 2. When you actually count the different types of enemies there's really not a huge variety there either. I mean, most of them were pretty much just identically proportionate humans in identical combine combat kit.
Now naturally, I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game by any means. But when it comes down to it, shooters in general really don't have a tremendous variety as far as enemies go, and alot of that comes down to design restrictions I'd suspect.
Again, this is a case of Bioshock being a shooter at heart. Shooters generally have a certain degree of linearity involved in order to present and advance the underlying narrative. With regards to the case you're thinking of - the case in question contained a fairly sizeable quantity of nitroglycerin. In this case, it would make sense to have the case fairly resistant to exterior kinetic force given the relatively volatile nature of its contents. As far as having the button to open the case hidden, it would make sense within the context of the setting to conceal access to a large quantity of explosives whilst in the middle of a civil war. Especially when an explosion might puncture the protective barriers and flood what is essentially, the city's electrical generator.
The thing is, what is the alternative really? When it comes to providing guidance to a potentially lost player there's not really a whole lot of options there. You can either try to provide the option of guidance, or you don't. In this case, obviously the designers felt it better to err on the side of caution and provide that guidance.
In any case, why was Bioshock worthy of its good reviews?
1.) A Unique Setting
I mean, really, when was the last time you played a game set in a slowly decaying underwater city wrecked by a civil war?
2.) A solid story
The story overall was very different than your usual material. For one, did you notice that for once the central character wasn't out to "save the world/universe/realm"? Ultimately, the goal of the game seems to be simple survival, with the option to save/destroy the remaining human survivors of the city.
3.) Great production values
As you yourself pointed out, the technical presentation of the game was excellent. Everything about the art, the sound - the environment in general contributed enormously to immersing the player in the game. Bioshock is the kind of game that really makes you wanna take a close look at the environment around you, because there's often some interesting information to be gleamed from it.
Now I'll admit, I'm not sure I agree with some of the perfect 10/10 scores that Bioshock has received from some sources. But it definitely deserves some high praise for frankly, being a damn fine shooter, especially when compared to alot of the more bland offerings that the genre often produces. I definitely think that it's way too early to hand it a game of the year award given some of the other games that are coming out this year.
On a bit of an off topic tangent, I'd probably dispute nominating Command and Conquer 3 for game of the year. Company of Heroes impressed me far more than Command and Conquer 3.
Baron Fel is the bestest.
More like it wont be over until someone does the "I CHOSE RAPTURE!" quote in relation to the bioshock threads.
I never asked for this!
That takes too long. I'll cut to the chase though.
I chose the impossible.
I chose Bioshock: Big Daddy goes AWOOOOOOOOOO
Is a man not entitled to make a forum thread?
No, says the G&T rules. It belongs to the Bioshock thread.
No, says the G&T forumers. It belongs to us.
No, says the G&T mod. It belongs to locksville.
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...
Bioshock Overrated?
Is a man not entitled to bitch as he chooses?
NO! says the Moderator it belongs to them!
NO! says SE++ it belongs to your cock!
NO! says Cardboard Tube it belongs to him!
I rejected those answers. Instead I chose to do something different. I CHOSE....NEOGAF!
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Tumblr
I know.
You build a thread under the sea where nothing can disturb you.
Then something goes TERRIBLY WRONG!
Then, after that, I can make a *DISCUSSION* *THREAD* about every other thing in the game.
@Bryceforvice on Twitter Facebook
But I loved System Shock, so I'm pretty psyched for picking up Bioshock, once I can find a god damn copy of it.
Hell I hardly got out of the water and in to the lobby some 90 seconds in to the game and I was already knew I'd be buying it the next day.
But I get that others don't feel the same way.
In fact, I hate Tekken. I genuinely believe that it hasn't deserved 5-something sequels, and begrudge it for taking attention away from other fighting franchises. But I don't go making threads proclaiming as such because at the end of the day, people's differing tastes and priorities in what makes a game good or bad will affect how you see a game.
I think the gaming industry has had such a terrible ratio of bad:decent:good:great games for the past 12 months (at least) that we're all starving for blockbuster or even semi-blockbuster titles that Bioshock was a scapegoat of sorts. I deserves good reviews, maybe even awesome reviews, but not second-coming-of-christ reviews (on another note, I think many of the games out that have 'good' reviews deserve 'not-so-good' reviews, and too many C games are getting Bs).
BS was one of the few games as of late where the developers seemed to spend more time in development and testing than most other games hoping on the "casual-gamer" train. Bioshock has a PC version that is more than a shitty console port - it is actually optimized and has much sharper textures! Why did developers stop doing these things?!
The plasmids were cool and all, but, it's been done before. Don't deserve the hype, in my opinion. Choice system was also overrated.
I liked the story very much, and loved the atmosphere, but I personally got a gnarly case of "Doom 3 Syndrome," where the shock-and-awe of the games dies down rather quickly and the gameplay becomes too repetitive.
I'm scared.
:^:
Tumblr
It's like looking at this horrifying battlefield that so many of our fellow gamers will never ever escape.
(it also makes me itch... inside)
Think of how people have chess tournaments or how we have millions of people taking the gameplay of football or soccer seriously. No one really looks at Bioshock, Jade Empire, KOTOR, GOW, or Lego Star Wars' gameplay and says "if you're good at those games, you must be a gifted cyber-athlete."
Gameplay wise, I'd put stuff like Counter-strike way, way ahead of Bioshock. But Counter-strike isn't anywhere near the "top 5 games of all time." Neither is any video game version of chess, or Tetris, or Dr. Mario, or whatever. They all have better gameplay, but they have no "soul" for people. People care about souls, personality, charm, and good looks more than gameplay. Not everyone wants something that actually challenges their skills. Most people just want to pull a lever and get triple 7s.
So yea, I think you might be like me, James, in that you often look at games like Bioshock in the same way you judge a sport such as football or baseball. Most people are not judging Bioshock in that way. They're looking at it in the same way you might judge a more "physically passive" media, such as a movie, a book, or a song. I think we're having this discussion to begin with because video games are usually a mix of sport and storytelling, which is something very unique about the medium. The fact that you brought up C&C3 and God of War 2 seems like a big indicator that you're more into games as "sports" than as storytelling/escapist mediums. To me, both of those games have better gameplay than Bioshock, but far inferior storytelling. Speaking for myself, I usually like games as "sports" than storytellers. The games I've played the most have been flight sims, RTS games, and multiplayer shooters. I also really enjoy "shmup" shooters like Ikaruga, and games like Ninja Gaiden and Onimusha. Games where, if i see someone doing extremely well at them, I'm truly impressed.
PS -- I think the PA forums are a bad place to talk about a game in-depth. Better to go to the game's official forums, or visit Gamespot/GameFAQ's forums (they give a forum to each game), if you want to get into discussions about specific topics.
edit: Guardian Legend: To say that Counter-Strike has better gameplay than Bioshock is...Jesus Christ, man. Jesus Christ. And your comment that people are judging it as passive media is nonsense. This game has excellent gameplay in addition to the ambiance.
Wow.
The atmosphere and design is fantastic, but I too think it's blinded quite a few people of the games' faults. This isn't the second coming, it's a fairly standard FPS set in a fantastically realised world with lots of polish.
Period goes at the end of a sentence chief.
People always make this argument when games like System Shock and Bioshock come out.
The fact is, the plasmids aren't "useless," they just aren't "required." You could get through the entire game without firing a single weapon, if you wanted to. That you and others are choosing to use weapons - likely because it is easier - doesn't make the plasmids useless. The designers don't have to provide an "and" condition - i.e. that plasmids AND weapons are required for combat - but they certainly provided an "or" condition.
You could get through the entire game with Enrage, Insect Swarm, Incinerate, Electro Bolt, and Security Target and never even pull out your wrench.
In short, this is a fairly standard FPS only if you choose to play it that way. The gameplay is very deep if you actually tap into it. This argument is like playing RPGs and always choosing a human fighter of average intelligence. Sure, you can get through the game that way. As long as you understand that you're missing out on a lot of other mechanics - magic for instance - and probably some content.
whut? O_o
You're overrated.
Also, it's subjective. There's no point in discussing which or what is overrated, because it always, ALWAYS ends in a flamewar. Calling something popular overrated is insulting, and people don't like it, and it never turns out well. So don't. Just say you don't like it.
Exactly. "I don't like this" is fine. "This is overrated" is an entirely different comment. You're basically saying "you're stupid for liking it so much."
BOOM end of thread.