lamest review ever
Gaming Evolution gave the game a 9.4/10, saying "BioShock 2 is not a departure from the original game as it takes a lot of the gameplay mechanics, tweaks them, and improves on what was already there. The new storyline is a lot less complex compared to the original game, giving you more playing time and less time trying to understand what’s going on."
"The new storyline is a lot less complex compared to the original game, giving you more playing time and less time trying to understand what’s going on."
wasn't that the whole fun of being in rapture........
yeah i miss the whole "WTF!?" experience of playing the first bioshock for the first time. I agree, lame review.
what's the problem? they're right.
you call it lame, but you agreed with it.
Originally Posted by andsomechips
Last edited by Bond697; 05-27-2010 at 12:52 AM.
yes and no - i agree with the fact that bioshock 2 wasn't as complex, but the way the reviewer writes it makes it sound like they disliked bioshock 1 BECAUSE of trying to figure out what was going on. That is at least what i felt. To me it sounded like they were putting bioshock 1 down and glorifying 2 more. which is why i said it was a lame review. because while the facts are correct, i don't agree with the logic. sorry for the confusion.
Originally Posted by Bond697
I really don't see how reviewers can gripe about "I went back to Rapture, and it was Rapture." If you didn't want to go back to Rapture, play Fallout 3.
I dunno, I think the storyline of BioShock 1 is way easier to understand - and better written - than the storyline of BioShock 2.
The reviewer's comment about more time playing and less time figuring out what's going on is just being silly.
Does the reviewer mean to say that they actually stopped playing the game and sat around trying to think about what everything meant?
No, of course not, so anything related to the storyline doesn't equate to more or less playing time. I felt that BioShock 1 offered more playing time as a longer game, and if anything, I would say I spent more time trying to figure out what was going on in BioShock 2.
I had the exact opposite effect. I played Bioshock 2 first and found it to have the bet story ive ever seen. I went and played Bioshock when i got the money and found it interesting only because it was still in Rapture but found the story lacking, boring, and generic. Whichever one an individual plays first automatically has the better story because its so mysterious and whichever one they play second is going to be more drab and boring
Last edited by X1 BLACKOUT 1X; 05-27-2010 at 06:50 AM.
I couldn't agree more, it irks me so much when people say such a thing. To me, Rapture is BioShock.
Originally Posted by janissary12
I thought the same thing. The way I view the story is that it was far more intricate than the story of BioShock. However, these intricacies aren't necessary to understand the main plot, (quite simply, save Eleanor and escape Rapture) they only add to the experience, and an understanding of what BioShock 2 strove to achieve.
Originally Posted by Relight
I admit the story is a bit messy, though. It makes me wish that they were able to invest more time into the story, rather than rushing to finish before the deadline. An early quote from Tenenbaum while in Atlantic Express is evidence of this...
"Now you know of the enemy we share: Sofia Lamb. The camera in your helmet allows me to watch through your eyes — and help you to fight her."
I was waiting throughout the entire game to hear anything regarding Tenenbaum or the camera in Delta's helmet, but it never happened. It makes me wonder if this was intended, possibly for a future DLC where Tenenbaum learns the fate of Delta, or if it was a cut concept from previous story idea's. Regardless, I'm still very confused by it. Alright, I'm done rambling
Well yes it is, but the reviewer has a point. Compared to BioShock 1, this game has only one real main objective - 'Save Eleanor and escape Rapture', while the first one is more complex, like - 'Find out where you are, who you are, survive agains't the Splicers and Andrew Ryan, save Atlas' family, to later get revenge on him etc...'.
Whether this is because of how much better 2k Boston were (as they were called) than 2k Marin at delivering a story, or that as an audience we are already used to Rapture, its quite hard to tell.
I wouldn't call it a lame review as such, just one that can see the real effect of the sequel, that honestly now its starting to get a bit 'stale'.
It's completly true though...It's not as in-depth as Bioshock 1, but it is a lot funner I figure.
Uh, more like an accurate review.
Originally Posted by chrispti
well why are you playing BS2 then? and all of you who are saying that BS2 sucks
Originally Posted by FernandoV
Some people agree, some disagree. Opinions opinions...
You are dense. The review did not say the game was ****, he was commenting on the sloppy story, etc. I love BS2, it is immensely fun, but its story is not up to par, or anywhere close, with BS1 in my opinion.
Originally Posted by venom11
Well, BS1 and BS2 were on par with eachother in most aspects. Which is why they start to rot after a few playthroughs.....
I think people seem to be misinterpreting the way this is written.
The writer isn't saying one story or the other is better or worse- he's saying that one of them (BS2) is less distracting from gameplay.
I don't like his conclusion though. I thought it was a breath of fresh air to see a game with such rich philosophy, morality, and political warfare to think about... and PREFERRED this to a game that was all shoot 'em up and no substance.
Fair enough everyone has their own opinion on what's more fun- but at the same time... Bioshock just isn't that game. If you want to play or review that- then try something else.
Bioshock is designed specifically to have a richer storyline, so criticizing it for doing so- is like complaining that your apples don't taste enough like banana.
where are you getting that from? agreeing with a review that isn't completely glowing of a game doesn't mean you don't like it. that doesn't make any sense at all. whether you like it or not, the game isn't perfect. fernando is right.
Originally Posted by venom11
bs1's story wasn't all that complex, but it was very rich with a lot history behind the major players and the setting in general. bioshock 2's felt kind of tacked on to that(still quite nice and somewhat thorough on its own, though), but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
not being able to measure up to bs1(but coming close) isn't an insult, it's praise. i've been playing games for quite a long time (>20 years) and i can only think of a handful of games as good as/better than bs1. it's not an insult to say bs2 comes close but doesn't match up.
metroidjunkie: those aren't rumors. many do get paid via either cash or gifts or pre-release games for early reviews.
Last edited by Bond697; 05-27-2010 at 10:09 PM.
Fernando is right, the story was not even close to how complex the one in Bioshock was and there wasnt much to figure out this time along, but it did have BETTER GAMEPLAY and that's I think thats what the reviewers trying to say.
No, B2 had a better story IMO. B1's was insanely generic "oh look! I don't know who I am, but I've been brought back to complete some tasks but I end up killing major leaders also and find out who I really am!"
Originally Posted by Incinerate
What people need to realize is that Bioshock 1 has very little story outside the generic, it's Rapture that has the amazing story everybody associates B1 with when it should be associated with the series as a whole.
This is the reason a B3 is going to be really hard to do and they have to work increadibly hard not to come up with generic plots like the ones from B1 and B2, but a truly engaging plotline without relying on the history of Rapture as a base for a good story.