Beat Bioshock

June 17, 2009

Spent the day finally finishing it. What a piece of shit.

Seriously, how did that ever get Game of the Year?

Most recent blog posts from Jonathan Stark...

This amount of fandom impresses me

Max Payne 3

Zombies Run

Most recent blog posts from Jonathan Stark...
This amount of fandom impresses me Max Payne 3 Zombies Run

Feedback

hmd - June 17, 2009 (09:42 PM)
because people are dumb.

joseph_valencia - June 17, 2009 (09:50 PM)
I thought this game was pretty underwhelming too, which is funny because I liked the demo a lot when I played it. For me, it all boiled down to the respawn feature. If you die, oh well, just work your way back from Vita Chamber.

Suskie - June 17, 2009 (10:05 PM)
YOU ONLY DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE JUDGING IT AS A GAME. YOU SHOULD BE JUDGING IT AS AN EXPERIENCE.

The final boss is the only point in the game where it's possible to die, therefore approximately .5% of BioShock is suspenseful.

As usual, disregard my 8/10.

bluberry - June 17, 2009 (11:08 PM)
yeah, HG nerds seem to be ambivalent at best about BioShock.

except for Lewis. Lewis you donkey. :(

honestgamer - June 18, 2009 (01:28 AM)
I liked BioShock too, as my PS3 review for it attests. It's definitely one of the better first-person adventure games around. Terrific sense of atmosphere, interesting story, gameplay that doesn't get in the way of the experience... it did pretty much everything precisely right. The only thing wrong with it is that now the sequel is going to have a devil of a time matching it. I'm still looking forward to it, though. I'm a glutton for punishment!

bluberry - June 18, 2009 (02:12 AM)
it's easily one of the best first person adventure games, when you haven't played Deus Ex or a single Valve game.

or System Shock 2!

or pretty much any one but BioShock. :P

joseph_valencia - June 18, 2009 (06:52 AM)
"Metroid Prime" was better. It may have had somewhat clunky controls, but at least death meant something in that game. I got the feeling that BioShock's devs came up with the "Vita Chamber" idea because they were too lazy to design actual levels.

"Screw it. Let's just make some real pretty environments, randomize everything, and give the player infinite re-spawns to account for the lack of cohesion."

Suskie - June 18, 2009 (09:48 AM)
I love how Jason just came in here and pretended everyone else agreed with him. Great way to deal with being in the distinct minority.

Speaking of which, I totally agree with you guys, Ninja Gaiden sucked! Glad we're all on the same level there.

zippdementia - June 18, 2009 (11:20 AM)
Well, you can turn OFF the vita chambers, as I discovered, and that makes the game PLAYABLE, but it's still not good. I actually feel exactly opposite about everything Jason just pointed out.

1) Atmosphere
Everyone talks about Bioshock having great atmosphere, but it really doesn't. It starts off with great atmosphere, but then it just copy and pastes that about a thousand times till you want to pull your head off. After the first few times I was snuck up by a Splicer, or saw a bunch of pipes bursting water everywhere, I just got bored. You know how I know a game has good atmosphere? If either (a) I have to take breaks because it's so heavy or (b) I have to explore every corner to see what's there.

In Bioshock I had to take breaks because I got headaches from all the dim lights (where was the "light" plasmid?) and I tried to run through it as fast as I could because there was never anything of interest in the side rooms aside from the occasional diary entry.

2) Story
I mean... Bioshock had an OKAY story. There were some interesting twists along the way, but ultimately it did the same things most games do. It replaced one villain with another, prophesised the downfall of humanity through greed and corruption, and showed people acting as their own evils.

And the goddamn moral system... I am so tired of moral systems. They're broken! I played the game very neutraly, killing many kids at the start of the game, but immediately changing my tune when I understood what they were. That was a great shift in character. As I became more aware of the evils of Rapture, my character further shifted towards good, until the end when he was deadly protective of the little sisters.

And what happens? Aparantly I must have killed a single sister too many, because SUDDENLY the game ends with my character being a mass murdering psychopath. What the fuck? That's not at ALL how I felt at the end of the game.

3) Gameplay
I don't know quite what you mean by "gameplay didn't get in the way." I do know that for me, gameplay slowed things down to a screeching halt. Enemies took too long to kill, plasmids were repetitive and too expensive to use in the ways I wanted to, and setting up traps was next to pointless (except for the ever useful set on fire than electrocute when they jump in water trap). If you really look at it, Bioshock is just a first person shooter done poorly because too much time was spent on a broken gimmick. I felt similarly about Fallout 3.

Anyways, that's been a little preview of the review I'll be writing for the game, and the review that will snag me another letter for the Alphabet challenge.

Ciao

Suskie - June 18, 2009 (05:00 PM)
Haha yeah, it must be a really great game if the best thing you can say about the gameplay is that it "doesn't get in the way"!

Also, the PS3 people got a later version of the game that came with the option to turn off Vita Chambers, something we can't do without downloading a patch, and I don't have Xbox Live.

But anyway, definitely review it. This site needs an all-out bash review for BioShock, which I'd happily write, but my review was written when I was on staff so I can't edit it now.

zippdementia - June 18, 2009 (10:11 PM)
I'm doing it right now. It's going to be a very intelligent bash, though. No flaming hatred. Much justification which, as you might be able to tell from my Soul Blazer review, is Nature's Fuck You to pestilence carrying critters...

.... like Bioshock.

Feedback
	hmd - June 17, 2009 (09:42 PM) because people are dumb.
	joseph_valencia - June 17, 2009 (09:50 PM) I thought this game was pretty underwhelming too, which is funny because I liked the demo a lot when I played it. For me, it all boiled down to the respawn feature. If you die, oh well, just work your way back from Vita Chamber.
	Suskie - June 17, 2009 (10:05 PM) YOU ONLY DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE JUDGING IT AS A GAME. YOU SHOULD BE JUDGING IT AS AN EXPERIENCE. The final boss is the only point in the game where it's possible to die, therefore approximately .5% of BioShock is suspenseful. As usual, disregard my 8/10.
	bluberry - June 17, 2009 (11:08 PM) yeah, HG nerds seem to be ambivalent at best about BioShock. except for Lewis. Lewis you donkey. :(
	honestgamer - June 18, 2009 (01:28 AM) I liked BioShock too, as my PS3 review for it attests. It's definitely one of the better first-person adventure games around. Terrific sense of atmosphere, interesting story, gameplay that doesn't get in the way of the experience... it did pretty much everything precisely right. The only thing wrong with it is that now the sequel is going to have a devil of a time matching it. I'm still looking forward to it, though. I'm a glutton for punishment!
	bluberry - June 18, 2009 (02:12 AM) it's easily one of the best first person adventure games, when you haven't played Deus Ex or a single Valve game. or System Shock 2! or pretty much any one but BioShock. :P
	joseph_valencia - June 18, 2009 (06:52 AM) "Metroid Prime" was better. It may have had somewhat clunky controls, but at least death meant something in that game. I got the feeling that BioShock's devs came up with the "Vita Chamber" idea because they were too lazy to design actual levels. "Screw it. Let's just make some real pretty environments, randomize everything, and give the player infinite re-spawns to account for the lack of cohesion."
	Suskie - June 18, 2009 (09:48 AM) I love how Jason just came in here and pretended everyone else agreed with him. Great way to deal with being in the distinct minority. Speaking of which, I totally agree with you guys, Ninja Gaiden sucked! Glad we're all on the same level there.
	zippdementia - June 18, 2009 (11:20 AM) Well, you can turn OFF the vita chambers, as I discovered, and that makes the game PLAYABLE, but it's still not good. I actually feel exactly opposite about everything Jason just pointed out. 1) Atmosphere Everyone talks about Bioshock having great atmosphere, but it really doesn't. It starts off with great atmosphere, but then it just copy and pastes that about a thousand times till you want to pull your head off. After the first few times I was snuck up by a Splicer, or saw a bunch of pipes bursting water everywhere, I just got bored. You know how I know a game has good atmosphere? If either (a) I have to take breaks because it's so heavy or (b) I have to explore every corner to see what's there. In Bioshock I had to take breaks because I got headaches from all the dim lights (where was the "light" plasmid?) and I tried to run through it as fast as I could because there was never anything of interest in the side rooms aside from the occasional diary entry. 2) Story I mean... Bioshock had an OKAY story. There were some interesting twists along the way, but ultimately it did the same things most games do. It replaced one villain with another, prophesised the downfall of humanity through greed and corruption, and showed people acting as their own evils. And the goddamn moral system... I am so tired of moral systems. They're broken! I played the game very neutraly, killing many kids at the start of the game, but immediately changing my tune when I understood what they were. That was a great shift in character. As I became more aware of the evils of Rapture, my character further shifted towards good, until the end when he was deadly protective of the little sisters. And what happens? Aparantly I must have killed a single sister too many, because SUDDENLY the game ends with my character being a mass murdering psychopath. What the fuck? That's not at ALL how I felt at the end of the game. 3) Gameplay I don't know quite what you mean by "gameplay didn't get in the way." I do know that for me, gameplay slowed things down to a screeching halt. Enemies took too long to kill, plasmids were repetitive and too expensive to use in the ways I wanted to, and setting up traps was next to pointless (except for the ever useful set on fire than electrocute when they jump in water trap). If you really look at it, Bioshock is just a first person shooter done poorly because too much time was spent on a broken gimmick. I felt similarly about Fallout 3. Anyways, that's been a little preview of the review I'll be writing for the game, and the review that will snag me another letter for the Alphabet challenge. Ciao
	Suskie - June 18, 2009 (05:00 PM) Haha yeah, it must be a really great game if the best thing you can say about the gameplay is that it "doesn't get in the way"! Also, the PS3 people got a later version of the game that came with the option to turn off Vita Chambers, something we can't do without downloading a patch, and I don't have Xbox Live. But anyway, definitely review it. This site needs an all-out bash review for BioShock, which I'd happily write, but my review was written when I was on staff so I can't edit it now.
	zippdementia - June 18, 2009 (10:11 PM) I'm doing it right now. It's going to be a very intelligent bash, though. No flaming hatred. Much justification which, as you might be able to tell from my Soul Blazer review, is Nature's Fuck You to pestilence carrying critters... .... like Bioshock.

© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors.