Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 1:43:32 GMT
In my opinion Bioshock two was not fantastic, its not bad, its just average to okay, it doesn't add all that much, the story is weaker, the gameplay is a step up from Bioshock, that is one thing it did right, but it doesn't need to be played to understand everything, and as of Burial at Sea part 2, its not canon, and the multiplayer was nothing special, not the worst game I have ever played, but not the best, its a good game, but from the Bioshock standard it's below average. It is still canon, Ken Levine said it was still Canon. And don't even talk about the story when you think Infinite is the best. Just don't. Sofia Lamb is a much better villain than Comstock, and her relationship with Delta doesn't involve any huge fucking plot holes. The relationship between Delta and Eleanor is better than that of Booker and Elizabeth. Mainly because Elizabeth doesn't act like she should. Someone who's never had contact with people who most of her life? Naturally she'd be happy and dancing and talking to everyone! No. Infinite is awful with gameplay. It removed hacking, multiple ammo types, the more unique weapons, you can only carry two weapons, removed unique enemy types, removed research, I think crafting also wasn't included in Bioshock 2, they got rid of gene tonics, the plasmids aren't as good, not as many chances for strategy, removed Adam(you just use money), gun upgrades aren't as good. Those are basically all facts... What did they add, let's see... Gear. Skylines. Tears. Gear are gene tonics, but not as good, and most of them relate to skylines. Skylines are fun, but a gimmick. They're useless most of the time. Tears are cool, but do not make up for removing just about everything else. Also in my opinion, the aesthetic and feel of Bioshock 2 was better than that of Infinite, and even the first. Marginally for the first... The story of Infinite was full of holes, and that's mainly what I've got against it. Bioshock 2 was very well done. Sofia Lamb was an incredible villain. Not as good as Ryan or Fontaine, but better than Comstock. Eleanor is a believable character, Sinclair is great, and generally, I liked many of the characters from Bioshock 2 compared to those from Infinite. I will say that counting Burial at Sea, Elizabeth is a great character, but I also count Burial at Sea as being separate form Infinite. So... Yeah, Bioshock 2 is much better than Infinite. Incredibly better. Niccc, if you play the Bioshock series, do not skip Bioshock Two, it's amazing. Lamb was a better villain than Comstock, sure. But they're both horrible. Neither come close to Fontaine. And Comstock has the most interesting relationship with the protagonist. Sofia was some bitch stealing Johnny Topside's (that was Delta's real name, right?) little sister. That's the extent of their relationship. Comstock was Booker. A Booker that hired scientists who ended up figuring out the secrets of interdimensional travel, where our hero is some shit head who gave his daughter up for some debt, and who only is even able to go after Comstock because Comstock's very own scientists turned against him, and brought the young, capable Booker to his dimension. Comstock is also a million times more memorable than Sofia Lamb. I could only tell you vague paraphrases of a few of the lines that Lamb used to throw around before I looked her up. I played 2 more recently than Infinite, and I didn't even complete Infinite, because of the terrible tower defense THING, and ended up just watching a Youtube video. Yet Comstock is SO MUCH MORE memorable, it isn't even funny. Comstock doesn't really have any plotholes either, if you look into the story. As for Delta and Elanor, it is not possible for that to be any better than Booker and Elizabeth. Elizabeth was stuck without people for a lot of her life, but she wasn't completely blind as to what people were, and how they got along. She spent her whole life reading books, and pondering how great it would be to get out there and talk to them. So when she WAS able to, that's exactly what she did. Some people are just like that. Elanor, however, has no personality. She's just, "Save me big daddy-o," and "I'll learn from YOU, no matter how bat shit crazy you are, and no matter what your motivations are, I'll just guess, because I totally couldn't just ask about why you killed the giant suffering fish man, and I'll assume that you did it out of blood lust." As for the gameplay, the additional ammo types added little, hacking added little, and the weapons were only unique in design. However, I do agree that Infinite dropped the ball on the weapons system. Two weapons and that's it? And also, some of the weapons just didn't make sense. Why exactly did the rebellion have weapons that were a million times better than the infinitely more well funded and staffed military? Because there was some Chinese dude who made the weapons for them? Wouldn't the military have apprehended him and made him make weapons for them, rather than killing the guy? Other than that, the gear was toned down gene tonics, true, but the sky hook actually added a great feeling of being in the open air, and even a little bit of a swash-buckling feeling to it. Sure, the actual technical contribution was not so great, but it made better use of the environment than Bioshock did, I tell ya that. As for tears, they're alright. Never minded them much. No way in hell is the aesthetic of 2 better than the original. They're the same, which makes 2 a ripoff. No two ways about it. They're both wrecked underwater cities. What more could 2 add? It all feels equally as wrecked, except for the fact that Bioshock 1 had better level design. The level design cramped, and ruined, which helped the atmosphere, while 2 had sort of generic level design. I felt like I may as well be playing some indoor level of Call of Duty. Lamb was a boring and forgettable villain. Elanor is a generic character, believable because she's basically every female non-romantic lead ever. Also, what characters? The ones that appeared for one level, and then either died, or disappeared? The lady in the one hotel is the exception to this, as she helped you out if you let her live, but the other two, not so much. I think the fish man pays you for letting him live, but that doesn't count. That doesn't impact the game in any meaningful way. I never played or saw Burial at Sea, so I can't account for that, but yeah... Bioshock 2 is a mediocre game.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 23, 2014 1:50:12 GMT
I'm fairly certain that "Johnny Topside" was just a nickname for Delta, considering that nobody knew who he was before he became a Big Daddy other than that he was from the surface (thus dubbing him "topside"). Whatever his real name is, we'll likely never find out.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 1:57:31 GMT
True, but there was not a moment where in Empire Strikes Back totally recons a major scene from A New Hope, that would have been like, say, saying Luke didn't blow up the Death Star, it was someone else, there is no explanation, and it really does change a very, very important plot point, I don't know, I have read literally hundreds of articles about Ken Levine and in none of them does he ever act like he liked Bioshock 2, he never outwardly says he hates it, but you can just tell he's not a fan of it, I don't know, the the fact there was a major contradiction in the finale chapter of Bioshock seems more then a confidence, and from a story telling prospective, with what they did in Burial at Sea, it seems odd to continue on after that. Technically, there was a scene like that. The infamous revelation that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. They hadn't planned that when they made "A New Hope", so when Obi-Wan told Luke his father was dead on Tatooine, he really meant it, and not just from "A certain point of view". Sure, that whole thing turned out well in the end, but it was still a retcon and still canon to the previous movie. That was more of a reveal or twist then retcon, with what they did here, they took something that had already been explained one way, and explained it another way at a different time.
|
|
|
Post by thatstoomuchfestivity on Jun 23, 2014 2:01:03 GMT
So...is this a Bioshock thread now guys? I think you should move this all to that thread.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 2:01:25 GMT
It is still canon, Ken Levine said it was still Canon. And don't even talk about the story when you think Infinite is the best. Just don't. Sofia Lamb is a much better villain than Comstock, and her relationship with Delta doesn't involve any huge fucking plot holes. The relationship between Delta and Eleanor is better than that of Booker and Elizabeth. Mainly because Elizabeth doesn't act like she should. Someone who's never had contact with people who most of her life? Naturally she'd be happy and dancing and talking to everyone! No. Infinite is awful with gameplay. It removed hacking, multiple ammo types, the more unique weapons, you can only carry two weapons, removed unique enemy types, removed research, I think crafting also wasn't included in Bioshock 2, they got rid of gene tonics, the plasmids aren't as good, not as many chances for strategy, removed Adam(you just use money), gun upgrades aren't as good. Those are basically all facts... What did they add, let's see... Gear. Skylines. Tears. Gear are gene tonics, but not as good, and most of them relate to skylines. Skylines are fun, but a gimmick. They're useless most of the time. Tears are cool, but do not make up for removing just about everything else. Also in my opinion, the aesthetic and feel of Bioshock 2 was better than that of Infinite, and even the first. Marginally for the first... The story of Infinite was full of holes, and that's mainly what I've got against it. Bioshock 2 was very well done. Sofia Lamb was an incredible villain. Not as good as Ryan or Fontaine, but better than Comstock. Eleanor is a believable character, Sinclair is great, and generally, I liked many of the characters from Bioshock 2 compared to those from Infinite. I will say that counting Burial at Sea, Elizabeth is a great character, but I also count Burial at Sea as being separate form Infinite. So... Yeah, Bioshock 2 is much better than Infinite. Incredibly better. Niccc, if you play the Bioshock series, do not skip Bioshock Two, it's amazing. Lamb was a better villain than Comstock, sure. But they're both horrible. Neither come close to Fontaine. And Comstock has the most interesting relationship with the protagonist. Sofia was some bitch stealing Johnny Topside's (that was Delta's real name, right?) little sister. That's the extent of their relationship. Comstock was Booker. A Booker that hired scientists who ended up figuring out the secrets of interdimensional travel, where our hero is some shit head who gave his daughter up for some debt, and who only is even able to go after Comstock because Comstock's very own scientists turned against him, and brought the young, capable Booker to his dimension. Comstock is also a million times more memorable than Sofia Lamb. I could only tell you vague paraphrases of a few of the lines that Lamb used to throw around before I looked her up. I played 2 more recently than Infinite, and I didn't even complete Infinite, because of the terrible tower defense THING, and ended up just watching a Youtube video. Yet Comstock is SO MUCH MORE memorable, it isn't even funny. Comstock doesn't really have any plotholes either, if you look into the story. As for Delta and Elanor, it is not possible for that to be any better than Booker and Elizabeth. Elizabeth was stuck without people for a lot of her life, but she wasn't completely blind as to what people were, and how they got along. She spent her whole life reading books, and pondering how great it would be to get out there and talk to them. So when she WAS able to, that's exactly what she did. Some people are just like that. Elanor, however, has no personality. She's just, "Save me big daddy-o," and "I'll learn from YOU, no matter how bat shit crazy you are, and no matter what your motivations are, I'll just guess, because I totally couldn't just ask about why you killed the giant suffering fish man, and I'll assume that you did it out of blood lust." As for the gameplay, the additional ammo types added little, hacking added little, and the weapons were only unique in design. However, I do agree that Infinite dropped the ball on the weapons system. Two weapons and that's it? And also, some of the weapons just didn't make sense. Why exactly did the rebellion have weapons that were a million times better than the infinitely more well funded and staffed military? Because there was some Chinese dude who made the weapons for them? Wouldn't the military have apprehended him and made him make weapons for them, rather than killing the guy? Other than that, the gear was toned down gene tonics, true, but the sky hook actually added a great feeling of being in the open air, and even a little bit of a swash-buckling feeling to it. Sure, the actual technical contribution was not so great, but it made better use of the environment than Bioshock did, I tell ya that. As for tears, they're alright. Never minded them much. No way in hell is the aesthetic of 2 better than the original. They're the same, which makes 2 a ripoff. No two ways about it. They're both wrecked underwater cities. What more could 2 add? It all feels equally as wrecked, except for the fact that Bioshock 1 had better level design. The level design cramped, and ruined, which helped the atmosphere, while 2 had sort of generic level design. I felt like I may as well be playing some indoor level of Call of Duty. Lamb was a boring and forgettable villain. Elanor is a generic character, believable because she's basically every female non-romantic lead ever. Also, what characters? The ones that appeared for one level, and then either died, or disappeared? The lady in the one hotel is the exception to this, as she helped you out if you let her live, but the other two, not so much. I think the fish man pays you for letting him live, but that doesn't count. That doesn't impact the game in any meaningful way. I never played or saw Burial at Sea, so I can't account for that, but yeah... Bioshock 2 is a mediocre game. Agreed on so many levels, all true, its a mediocre game that was created to ring more penny's, and they still made it anyway when the original developer and company said no, and it shows.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 2:01:46 GMT
So...is this a Bioshock thread now guys? I think you should move this all to that thread. No, I'll go make that.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 23, 2014 2:04:19 GMT
Technically, there was a scene like that. The infamous revelation that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. They hadn't planned that when they made "A New Hope", so when Obi-Wan told Luke his father was dead on Tatooine, he really meant it, and not just from "A certain point of view". Sure, that whole thing turned out well in the end, but it was still a retcon and still canon to the previous movie. That was more of a reveal or twist then retcon, with what they did here, they took something that had already been explained one way, and explained it another way at a different time. "Your father was killed by my student, Darth Vader, who turned to evil." "Your father is Darth Vader, my student who turned evil." No. It was outright stated that Luke's father was dead, and since they weren't planning to make Darth Vader his father until after that, it's a retcon. It was an established fact that Luke's father was dead. It worked out really well, but it's still a retcon.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 2:06:23 GMT
Well, I suppose your right, it is a retcon, I suppose its been to long since I have seen Star Wars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 2:07:48 GMT
And I love this video, a bit more critical than I am, I really do like Bioshock Infinite, but it does address most of the problems I have with it: To the first video: Probably best to read this as you watch the video... Booker changing his name really is not a plothole... I don't get this part so much. Booker is made out to be sort of dull, why would he understand this perfectly? It's very possible and likely that he just made a mistake in that field, or that he changed his name to get as far away from his past as humanly possible. I personally believe the latter. Also, there's nothing really to suggest that Columbia doesn't exist in Booker's timeline, not to my knowledge, anyways. The youngest we see Comstock is when he is first starting Columbia, and he looks older than Booker. The only plothole there is that Comstock's hair is curly in that flashback we see him in, while Booker's is straight in the box art, and on the cover of the game. Then again, that could be my shitty TV, so let's move on. Perhaps Zachary was involved with the political side of things, as in all of the little informative old thing-you-put-your-eyes-into that play little movies, it shows that he seems to be the sole ambassador to the United States. There is also a lot that is left up to the imagination. Not the greatest story telling device, but also not the greatest story. It can be safely assumed that Rosalin did not want to partner up with Comstock, but had to for external reasons, such as maybe funding, or something along those lines, as in this sort of era, the United States was one of the better off countries in the aftermath of World War One. The real world timeline is canon unless directly said otherwise, for the most part, right? As for him parading Wounded Knee, keep in mind that Comstock went crazy along the way. Going back to the little references to Columbia's history, Comstock's actions seem relatively normal until he has white hair, long after he buys Anna. This means that Comstock had quite a long time to go a bit nuts. So I give that one a pass. As for the game not knowing whether or not Comstock is a believer or a liar, I think he's a believer, but again, a fucking psychopath. Psychopaths do things that are contradictory in nature. As for the ending, shooting Booker in the foot, that could be, but for some reason, the rules they set say that Wounded Knee is a must. Normal time travel rules don't apply. The main difference in all of these universes is what Booker did at that baptism, making that the place where it has to happen. To the second: Oh fuck it's thirty minutes. Not right now, I'll watch it later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 2:10:28 GMT
I am not saying Bioshock 2 is absolute crap, trust me I know what those are like, its not Ride to Hell, its just, average, and for the last time, its not canon, if you can show me proof that my favorite game developer in the industry says its canon, then please, show me, I wouldn't be complaining, sometimes I am wrong, but as far as I know, he never talks about it, he skips conversations about it, and Burial at Sea part 2 reconned a major plot point, how is that still canon? I don't think he;s said it's canon, but that's because I don't think it's come up as an issue, I just linked to something explaining the pair bonding thing between Eleanor and Delta(Oh, and the prototypes are better because they are more intelligent and have slightly more freewill, though aren't as tough. Ryan wanted toughness over intelligence). Also, Bioshock 2 DOES have a position in the plot, well, maybe not the connected plot of Bioshock, Infinite, and Burial at Sea, but it wasn't just a rehashed Bioshock. The whole idea of creating Utopia though one controlled body(The great Family of Rapture or whatever she called it), and the bond between Eleanor and Delta, which I thought was stronger than that of Booker and Elizabeth, even though Delta doesn't speak. That might just be down to opinion. Regardless, it does have a unique story, so please don't say otherwise. It's unique? Dude, it's fucking Super Mario Brothers set in Rapture. It isn't unique at all.
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 23, 2014 2:22:36 GMT
Post about Bioshock here. Anything you have to say about it. Hell, everything you have to say about it.
I'm looking at you, Bio and Zyphon.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 2:29:52 GMT
Huh, when you break it down that much, yeah, it kind of is.
|
|
|
Post by Bioshock Infinite WD on Jun 23, 2014 2:30:46 GMT
Actually a Bioshock thread is not technically correct, I say Infinite VS 2, with polls and everything!
|
|
|
Post by Rock114 on Jun 23, 2014 2:34:43 GMT
This thread is for everything Bioshock. Surprisingly enough, a debate between Bioshock 2 and Bioshock Infinite counts as being related to the Bioshock series. Once the debate gets settled or abandoned or whatever, this thread can also be used to just shoot the shit about anything related to the series, and more importantly keeps other threads from being clogged up by debates that are irrelevant to their topics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 2:34:45 GMT
This all comes down to a difference of opinion, and i'm sorry, but you probably aren't going to convince me that Bioshock 2 is a bad game when I thought it was so good. I'm open to changing my opinion on most things, but not this. And I'm getting the feeling that not matter what I say, i'm not getting very far with pushing my own opinion further either. I'd rather just not continue, and instead, I'll just avoid this topic with you guys in future.
Unless you go trying to push your opinions that the game is bad on other people, such as bio telling everyone to skip Bioshock 2. In that case, I will continue to defend it, but this particular argument has moved past that, and is now just us arguing about which one is better with no one else involved. So I'm simply going to walk away now, as I get the feeling that I'd probably have more success trying to convince Harp that Kenny is the best character in The Walking Dead. ._.
|
|