|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 0:31:55 GMT
The second one is really good. (getting this in here before Bio says it's a waste of time) I've heard from a lot of people that it's not as good as 1 and Infinite, but it's great too and has kinda it's own story. Between you and me, the best thing to come out of Bioshock 2 was Minerva's Den, a rather spectacular piece of DLC, and without question the best Bioshock DLC until Burial at Sea, that DLC alone I feel is better then the main game.
|
|
|
Post by Tormundo on Jan 28, 2015 0:41:03 GMT
I've heard from a lot of people that it's not as good as 1 and Infinite, but it's great too and has kinda it's own story. Well I personally see it as an okay game overall, but a really bad Bioshock game, if that makes sense, and Burial at Sea kinda sorta retconned Bioshock 2, because Bioshock 2 is all about the birth of Big Daddy and them being friends with Little Sisters, yet Burial at Sea part 2 does that also, so they kind of conflict, add in the fact that Ken Levine has said before in the past that he is not a fan of 2 and you begin to see the problem here. Well, I can't say much because I haven't played through the whole game, I played until I got to the first Big Sister fight and the game crashed, and I haven't opened it again since then. Although i didn't played it, i know some stuff about it (I have a friend who also loves BioShock and when he finished 2 he was talking about it a lot). I know part of the problem (or the whole problem) is that Ken Levine didn't write Bioshock 2, and that was what made it less Bioshock-ish I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 0:45:59 GMT
Well I personally see it as an okay game overall, but a really bad Bioshock game, if that makes sense, and Burial at Sea kinda sorta retconned Bioshock 2, because Bioshock 2 is all about the birth of Big Daddy and them being friends with Little Sisters, yet Burial at Sea part 2 does that also, so they kind of conflict, add in the fact that Ken Levine has said before in the past that he is not a fan of 2 and you begin to see the problem here. Well, I can't say much because I haven't played through the whole game, I played until I got to the first Big Sister fight and the game crashed, and I haven't opened it again since then. Although i didn't played it, i know some stuff about it (I have a friend who also loves BioShock and when he finished 2 he was talking about it a lot). I know part of the problem (or the whole problem) is that Ken Levine didn't write Bioshock 2, and that was what made it less Bioshock-ish I guess. Yeah he didn't write it and in my opinion suffered because of that, I mean it's still a great looking city, but that's mostly because it had already been made in Bioshock, and the story isn't really needed, I mean Bioshock 1 did rap up with next to no plot threads left, and like I said, it now conflicts with Burial at Sea, it may not even be canon anymore, I don't know I always feel it's a really good game to test what type of gamer you are. If you said it's the best of the three Bioshocks, then you are a mechanicalgamer that focuses on gameplay more then story, if you loved 1 and Infinite and don't think highly of 2, you are a story gamer that likes a great story over gameplay, that is probably the best thing about the game, its the perfect test to find out who you are!
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 0:49:29 GMT
Well I personally see it as an okay game overall, but a really bad Bioshock game, if that makes sense, and Burial at Sea kinda sorta retconned Bioshock 2, because Bioshock 2 is all about the birth of Big Daddy and them being friends with Little Sisters, yet Burial at Sea part 2 does that also, so they kind of conflict, add in the fact that Ken Levine has said before in the past that he is not a fan of 2 and you begin to see the problem here. Well, I can't say much because I haven't played through the whole game, I played until I got to the first Big Sister fight and the game crashed, and I haven't opened it again since then. Although i didn't played it, i know some stuff about it (I have a friend who also loves BioShock and when he finished 2 he was talking about it a lot). I know part of the problem (or the whole problem) is that Ken Levine didn't write Bioshock 2, and that was what made it less Bioshock-ish I guess. Oh and to break down the conflicting story problem, the main character in Bioshock 2 is the first Big Daddy to be pair bonded to a Little Sister, this happens before the New Years Eve riots, Burial at Sea shows the first pair bond being created by Elizabeth between a injured Big Daddy and the Little Sister who helped him, this happened a couple weeks after the riots, and at this point good old Suchong is still working on pair bonding, which he shouldn't be if the first pair bond was before the riots, therefore 2 and the DLC conflict each other, and seeing how 90% of Bioshock 2 is after 1, and Burial at Sea is before it, it seems a bit more logical to take Burial at Sea's side, that, and Ken Levine wrote it, he had nothing to do with 2 and loath's it apparently, so there's the problem, and if the bonding thing is canon to Burial at Sea, then that means Bioshock 2 is not even canon, so it's not even bothering with.
|
|
|
Post by Tormundo on Jan 28, 2015 0:53:25 GMT
Well, I can't say much because I haven't played through the whole game, I played until I got to the first Big Sister fight and the game crashed, and I haven't opened it again since then. Although i didn't played it, i know some stuff about it (I have a friend who also loves BioShock and when he finished 2 he was talking about it a lot). I know part of the problem (or the whole problem) is that Ken Levine didn't write Bioshock 2, and that was what made it less Bioshock-ish I guess. Yeah he didn't write it and in my opinion suffered because of that, I mean it's still a great looking city, but that's mostly because it had already been made in Bioshock, and the story isn't really needed, I mean Bioshock 1 did rap up with next to no plot threads left, and like I said, it now conflicts with Burial at Sea, it may not even be canon anymore, I don't know I always feel it's a really good game to test what type of gamer you are. If you said it's the best of the three Bioshocks, then you are a mechanicalgamer that focuses on gameplay more then story, if you loved 1 and Infinite and don't think highly of 2, you are a story gamer that likes a great story over gameplay, that is probably the best thing about the game, its the perfect test to find out who you are! Yep, Bioshock 1 already established all the base and Bioshock 2 used it. Ken Levine probably doesn't considers it canon, and I don't know if that's a shame or not because I don't know yet if it helps the story in any sense. I guess I'll have to play it to make my own opinion about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tormundo on Jan 28, 2015 0:55:25 GMT
Well, I can't say much because I haven't played through the whole game, I played until I got to the first Big Sister fight and the game crashed, and I haven't opened it again since then. Although i didn't played it, i know some stuff about it (I have a friend who also loves BioShock and when he finished 2 he was talking about it a lot). I know part of the problem (or the whole problem) is that Ken Levine didn't write Bioshock 2, and that was what made it less Bioshock-ish I guess. Oh and to break down the conflicting story problem, the main character in Bioshock 2 is the first Big Daddy to be pair bonded to a Little Sister, this happens before the New Years Eve riots, Burial at Sea shows the first pair bond being created by Elizabeth between a injured Big Daddy and the Little Sister who helped him, this happened a couple weeks after the riots, and at this point good old Suchong is still working on pair bonding, which he shouldn't be if the first pair bond was before the riots, therefore 2 and the DLC conflict each other, and seeing how 90% of Bioshock 2 is after 1, and Burial at Sea is before it, it seems a bit more logical to take Burial at Sea's side, that, and Ken Levine wrote it, he had nothing to do with 2 and loath's it apparently, so there's the problem, and if the bonding thing is canon to Burial at Sea, then that means Bioshock 2 is not even canon, so it's not even bothering with. Well, they could say that Bioshock 2 happens in another universe xD
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 0:58:56 GMT
Oh and to break down the conflicting story problem, the main character in Bioshock 2 is the first Big Daddy to be pair bonded to a Little Sister, this happens before the New Years Eve riots, Burial at Sea shows the first pair bond being created by Elizabeth between a injured Big Daddy and the Little Sister who helped him, this happened a couple weeks after the riots, and at this point good old Suchong is still working on pair bonding, which he shouldn't be if the first pair bond was before the riots, therefore 2 and the DLC conflict each other, and seeing how 90% of Bioshock 2 is after 1, and Burial at Sea is before it, it seems a bit more logical to take Burial at Sea's side, that, and Ken Levine wrote it, he had nothing to do with 2 and loath's it apparently, so there's the problem, and if the bonding thing is canon to Burial at Sea, then that means Bioshock 2 is not even canon, so it's not even bothering with. Well, they could say that Bioshock 2 happens in another universe xD Well then it's clearly not the Rapture from Bioshock 1 and Burial at Sea, which kind of defeats the point, regardless, there is a massive contradiction, and it seemingly makes Bioshock 2 non canon, and really no one cared, I never heard anyone rise up and complain, they just shrugged and went along with it.
|
|
|
Post by Tormundo on Jan 28, 2015 1:04:06 GMT
Well, they could say that Bioshock 2 happens in another universe xD Well then it's clearly not the Rapture from Bioshock 1 and Burial at Sea, which kind of defeats the point, regardless, there is a massive contradiction, and it seemingly makes Bioshock 2 non canon, and really no one cared, I never heard anyone rise up and complain, they just shrugged and went along with it. Hmm, yeah, that's true, no matter if it's not canon at all or if it isn't canon in the main timeline, it doesn't matter on the story and on the first rapture, and that's the problem. Well, I doubt Ken Levine would consider BAS2 not canon, so I think he just considers Bioshock 2 as not canon instead, like you said before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 2:13:44 GMT
The second one is really good. (getting this in here before Bio says it's a waste of time) I've heard from a lot of people that it's not as good as 1 and Infinite, but it's great too and has kinda it's own story. The main problem with it lies in the story. It's almost lazy. The game shines most when it's building up certain side characters, letting you know in which unique way they slighted you, and then letting you decide their fate. Unfortunately, these sections also build up the game's biggest downfall. The ending. The ending is chosen for you depending on what you did to these side characters. I did three bad things out of five, and got the ultimate bad ending. However, only one of them was done in the vengeful way that the game assumed they all were, and one of the choices was flat out wrong. My choices were this (minor spoilers): Saved 2 people Killed one bad person out of vengefulness Killed one insane person, because he left a message to me before he went insane, where he was begging me to kill him Devoured 2 little girls out of ten or so that I saved, because I needed the Adam right then. Does that sound like the ultimate evil ending? Maybe a neutral ending, sure, but I got the absolute worst ending. This doesn't even mention some plotholes, nor does it mention certain bullshit aspects, but is just my biggest complaint.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 2:35:32 GMT
I've heard from a lot of people that it's not as good as 1 and Infinite, but it's great too and has kinda it's own story. The main problem with it lies in the story. It's almost lazy. The game shines most when it's building up certain side characters, letting you know in which unique way they slighted you, and then letting you decide their fate. Unfortunately, these sections also build up the game's biggest downfall. The ending. The ending is chosen for you depending on what you did to these side characters. I did three bad things out of five, and got the ultimate bad ending. However, only one of them was done in the vengeful way that the game assumed they all were, and one of the choices was flat out wrong. My choices were this (minor spoilers): Saved 2 people Killed one bad person out of vengefulness Killed one insane person, because he left a message to me before he went insane, where he was begging me to kill him Devoured 2 little girls out of ten or so that I saved, because I needed the Adam right then. Does that sound like the ultimate evil ending? Maybe a neutral ending, sure, but I got the absolute worst ending. This doesn't even mention some plotholes, nor does it mention certain bullshit aspects, but is just my biggest complaint. Yeah that's a pain, the one where he is clearly crazy and begging for a mercy death sounds right, but no, and instantly means no good ending for you, that is bullshit! Hell the idea of several endings was not suppose to be in Bioshock 1, they originally wanted one ending, but 2K said they needed two endings for replay value, and this took it to another level, ugh that is so annoying, plus the fact it's so much harder to get Little Sisters, why did they need to make it like that one segment from the first game that no one liked? I don't know, not the worst game ever, but probably unnecessary, and now not even canon so why bother?
|
|
|
Post by Tormundo on Jan 28, 2015 2:46:09 GMT
The main problem with it lies in the story. It's almost lazy. The game shines most when it's building up certain side characters, letting you know in which unique way they slighted you, and then letting you decide their fate. Unfortunately, these sections also build up the game's biggest downfall. The ending. The ending is chosen for you depending on what you did to these side characters. I did three bad things out of five, and got the ultimate bad ending. However, only one of them was done in the vengeful way that the game assumed they all were, and one of the choices was flat out wrong. My choices were this (minor spoilers): Saved 2 people Killed one bad person out of vengefulness Killed one insane person, because he left a message to me before he went insane, where he was begging me to kill him Devoured 2 little girls out of ten or so that I saved, because I needed the Adam right then. Does that sound like the ultimate evil ending? Maybe a neutral ending, sure, but I got the absolute worst ending. This doesn't even mention some plotholes, nor does it mention certain bullshit aspects, but is just my biggest complaint. Yeah that's a pain, the one where he is clearly crazy and begging for a mercy death sounds right, but no, and instantly means no good ending for you, that is bullshit! Hell the idea of several endings was not suppose to be in Bioshock 1, they originally wanted one ending, but 2K said they needed two endings for replay value, and this took it to another level, ugh that is so annoying, plus the fact it's so much harder to get Little Sisters, why did they need to make it like that one segment from the first game that no one liked? I don't know, not the worst game ever, but probably unnecessary, and now not even canon so why bother? It's a shame that they did the choices just for the sake of replaying value, in my opinion. (I didn't know that). I would usually answer with a more complete answer, but since I haven't played the game I can't say much. At least now I know some reasons of why people considers it such a bad game. One of these days i'll play and i'll formulate my own opinions about it. I doubt i'll like it much, buuuut i'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jan 28, 2015 2:56:01 GMT
The main problem with it lies in the story. It's almost lazy. The game shines most when it's building up certain side characters, letting you know in which unique way they slighted you, and then letting you decide their fate. Unfortunately, these sections also build up the game's biggest downfall. The ending. The ending is chosen for you depending on what you did to these side characters. I did three bad things out of five, and got the ultimate bad ending. However, only one of them was done in the vengeful way that the game assumed they all were, and one of the choices was flat out wrong. My choices were this (minor spoilers): Saved 2 people Killed one bad person out of vengefulness Killed one insane person, because he left a message to me before he went insane, where he was begging me to kill him Devoured 2 little girls out of ten or so that I saved, because I needed the Adam right then. Does that sound like the ultimate evil ending? Maybe a neutral ending, sure, but I got the absolute worst ending. This doesn't even mention some plotholes, nor does it mention certain bullshit aspects, but is just my biggest complaint. Yeah that's a pain, the one where he is clearly crazy and begging for a mercy death sounds right, but no, and instantly means no good ending for you, that is bullshit! Hell the idea of several endings was not suppose to be in Bioshock 1, they originally wanted one ending, but 2K said they needed two endings for replay value, and this took it to another level, ugh that is so annoying, plus the fact it's so much harder to get Little Sisters, why did they need to make it like that one segment from the first game that no one liked? I don't know, not the worst game ever, but probably unnecessary, and now not even canon so why bother? It's a shame that they did the choices just for the sake of replaying value, in my opinion. (I didn't know that). I would usually answer with a more complete answer, but since I haven't played the game I can't say much. At least now I know some reasons of why people considers it such a bad game. One of these days i'll play and i'll formulate my own opinions about it. I doubt i'll like it much, buuuut i'll see. Yeah that seems fair, well at least someone finally let Ken Levine do everything, because Infinite has one ending, and it's clearly better for it, it would not have been as good if there was a bad ending, hell maybe that was a point he was trying to make, good, bad, does it really matter? Whatever it truly means, which it reality it means what you want it to mean, it sure is better then two minutes of cut-scene, and then back to main menu.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:59:26 GMT
Oh I am so going to judge you for liking Beyond: Two Souls, which is the most annoying title ever because you have to mark the colon for it sounds like a totally different title! I was actually liked it as well, and I don't see your point about the title. Yahtzee(Zero Punctuation) made a point about it, too, and I still don't get the problem. Anyway, yes, it's ridiculous. But... why would anyone expect a serious story from David Cage? I mean, I get mocking him for thinking it could be a serious "emotional" story, but leave his idiocy out of it, and you can just appreciate it for it's insanity and very good acting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 12:01:06 GMT
Don't judge me. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I don't judge, I am just saying I have a personal beef with that game that is far more negative then Bioshock 2, oh man... I could rip that game apart for days, and it's pretentious ass game developer, or should I say, "director" for making shit games with terrible plots and essentially doing what Telltale does, but much worse, oh and gives France a bad name! "Oh I am so going to judge you" "I don't judge" What?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 12:16:28 GMT
I'm not going to bother replying to every point but:
Bioshock 2 is canon, we've been through this, Bio.
I honestly don't give a damn about the gameplay too much. I liked Bioshock 2 because overall, I liked the story more than Infinite. The only thing that I liked in Infinite compared to any of the Bioshock games are Booker and Elizabeth. Didn't like Comstock as a villain, didn't like the side characters, it's riddled with plot holes, and it's a step away from the original(or 2, for the matter) in what the story is actually about.
The first two were a commentary on society by showing two extremes. Essentially, either of those games could be a message against extremism. The first focused on capitalism and individualism, and 2 did much of the same with communism, and turned the idea of "utopia" on it's head.
In terms of any sort of social commentary, Infinite's big message seems to be "racism is bad", or "Religious extremism is bad". The first point is... well, unnecessary, and the second point could have been good, if they had done anything with it.
Bioshock's science fiction element was tied in with the message that the story showed. Scientists were not tied down by any laws or morality, so Rapture progressed very fast. The focus on individualism naturally led them to genetic modification. All the fantastical elements in the original had a reason to exist. Bioshock 2, obviously, carried this over, but it also focused more on the relationship between the Big Daddy's and Little Sister's, and they did this quite well, but than that small bit at the end of Burial at Sea I'd say.
Infinite's plot focuses mostly on the science fiction element, to it's detriment, and not a whole lot of the science fiction stuff has a reason to exist. What's the reason for vigors? No one uses them, and they are not seen as an important part of the world. They exist as a gameplay element only.
As I said before, I really don't want to get into it, but honestly, even though I've posted this video before, this covers all my complaints with Infinite:
As for the second... well, no, it doesn't have a reason to exist, but honestly, I liked the story more than Infinite, and the gameplay. It's a better game, regardless of if it has less place in the series as a whole.
|
|