10 Things I Hate About Bioshock

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

But why bother? Why not just have saving and loading as and when you want? It's up to you then if you want to abuse the save system.

To put it another way, I've played Half Life at least 6 times, sure I don't like the alien levels and usually stop playing once I reach them (ugh jumping puzzles in fps games grrr!!). When the Black Mesa Source mod is finished I'll play it again. Project IGI on the other hand, I must of played some of the later levels 8 or 9 times before I completed them. I'm a little disappointed to have not finished the game, but I'd never replay that game.

It's up to you what you make of the games, no one forces people to reload, no one forces people to use cheats, so no one should force people to replay and replay the same bit over and over again.

 

[fedaykin]

I also despise checkpoint saving. It only adds to the frustration of less skilled players, but not only. Skilled players also make mistakes, sometimes in crucial situations. Today, a friend of mine, a sony fanboy, complained about having died two times in a row after having played through a long portion of a game. He's a pretty skilled player.

It should be up to the player whether he wants to save more or less frequently. Skilled players won't save that often anyway. So why force less skilled players to save as rarely as skilled players?

Yeah, there are difficulty levels, but an easier difficulty level will not eliminate situations where you simply screw up and get killed after a long time without saving, or just forget to save. In my experience, this is an inevitable thing that just happens sometimes. I remember it even from half-life - you get excited, you're on a fuckin killing spree and then bang, you're dead...but then you realize you haven't saved for a while. With checkpoints, this tends to be even more frustrating.

 

[the4thlaw]

you realize it is as idiotic as having a rat drop a tower shield in a RPG.

amen to that!

 

[SuAside]

So I suppose you're not a big fan of playing games without dying?

Many modern games offer little to no punishment for dying, because you can simply load the game at any time. I hate that.

For sucking, I want to be punished, for preparing and using the proper amount of caution, I want to be rewarded.

Consequences, I want poor choices and poor skills to allow for consequences, that is all, really.
I'm tired of games without a way to lose.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO FAIL.

that's a bullshit argument.

if you dont want to save, then DONT SAVE? sjeezes...

a lot of casual gamers dont have the time nor the will to keep playing to the next 'checkpoint'. so a good save system is always welcome. personally, i only reloaded the game once after making a stupid fall and having to make my way back. for all the rest, i used vitachambers (which wasnt all that much either).

vitachambers act as your 'checkpoint'-save, without actually saving for you. the consequences of your stupidity you so herald is the fact that you're stuck with the ammo you have and limited eve.

this system is far superior to whatever checkpoint save system you can think up. not to mention checkpoint save systems came into existence because of the limitations of programming and hardware...

 

[xdarkyrex]

Hmm, I think that games are designed with the fact that you can load at any time in mind, and therefore tend to not make games that encourage never dying.

 

[SuAside]

Hmm, I think that games are designed with the fact that you can load at any time in mind, and therefore tend to not make games that encourage never dying.

choice & consequence:

if you want to play a hard game, put the difficulty on hard & dont save? no one is stopping you? the game leaves it up to you.

on the other hand a checkpoint save game system enforces itself onto the player, which is often regarded as very annoying by PC gamers and accepted by console gamers (likely because they dont know any better). besides, more often than not, checkpoint saving nowadays is simply a means to add more time to the playthrough (hence extending the 'life' of the game), rather than adding to gameplay.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Hmm, I think that games are designed with the fact that you can load at any time in mind, and therefore tend to not make games that encourage never dying.

choice & consequence:

if you want to play a hard game, put the difficulty on hard & dont save? no one is stopping you? the game leaves it up to you.

on the other hand a checkpoint save game system enforces itself onto the player, which is often regarded as very annoying by PC gamers and accepted by console gamers (likely because they dont know any better). besides, more often than not, checkpoint saving nowadays is simply a means to add more time to the playthrough (hence extending the 'life' of the game), rather than adding to gameplay.

Hmm, I suppose you all have a point, and what I want is more along the lines of not making games designed in such a way that you will almost always die several times from beginning to end. I want reward for survival, and most games its just not terribly realistic to think you can play through from beginning to end without dying.

 

[Lexx]

Checkpoint saving is bad. I hate it so play a part onethousendbatzilion times and more.

BioShock is a cool game, but it isn't "perfect". (because of the missing inventar system, and so on)

I also saw a trailer for many times ago in wich the player was in a fight with some Big Daddys... the trailer was so damn nice. And now the bad thing... I didn't saw such a fight in the game... (as example, I can remember that the borer-weapon of the Big Daddy drilled through the hand of the player and so on and so on...)

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Hmm, I suppose you all have a point, and what I want is more along the lines of not making games designed in such a way that you will almost always die several times from beginning to end. I want reward for survival, and most games its just not terribly realistic to think you can play through from beginning to end without dying.

Uh sorry how does checkpoint saving do any of that? Your only reward for not dying is not having to replay the damn section again and again. And games that use checkpoint saves are no better designed to allow you to survive than any other type of game.

I've played FOT in tough guy mode, JA2 in Iron man, Silent Storm with the in combat saving turned off. They were fun, tough and rewarding but only when I had the time spare to devote myself to playing for several hours. And it was my choice to play that way, but trying to get through the final areas of say Stalker without saving would be a nightmare.

More games are randomising the placement of opponents, if you reload they'll never quite be in the same place. This is a much better system than restricting saving. I would like to see more games have a cutscene when you die, rather than just auto reloading the last save or taking you to a menu. What would be especially nice is if the cutscenes would alter as you progress through the game. Kind of like showing the different endings for each town in Fallout based on your actions.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Hmm, I suppose you all have a point, and what I want is more along the lines of not making games designed in such a way that you will almost always die several times from beginning to end. I want reward for survival, and most games its just not terribly realistic to think you can play through from beginning to end without dying.

Uh sorry how does checkpoint saving do any of that? Your only reward for not dying is not having to replay the damn section again and again. And games that use checkpoint saves are no better designed to allow you to survive than any other type of game.

I've played FOT in tough guy mode, JA2 in Iron man, Silent Storm with the in combat saving turned off. They were fun, tough and rewarding but only when I had the time spare to devote myself to playing for several hours. And it was my choice to play that way, but trying to get through the final areas of say Stalker without saving would be a nightmare.

More games are randomising the placement of opponents, if you reload they'll never quite be in the same place. This is a much better system than restricting saving. I would like to see more games have a cutscene when you die, rather than just auto reloading the last save or taking you to a menu. What would be especially nice is if the cutscenes would alter as you progress through the game. Kind of like showing the different endings for each town in Fallout based on your actions.

To be honest, my original statement was to make saving more like Diablo 2... which is to say, no saving at all, but checkpoints just incase of power outages or something similar.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

To be honest, my original statement was to make saving more like Diablo 2... which is to say, no saving at all, but checkpoints just incase of power outages or something similar.

Which still doesn't reward the player for not dying. In fact it's better to die a few times in Diablo 2 so you can get more loot.

 

[xdarkyrex]

To be honest, my original statement was to make saving more like Diablo 2... which is to say, no saving at all, but checkpoints just incase of power outages or something similar.

Which still doesn't reward the player for not dying. In fact it's better to die a few times in Diablo 2 so you can get more loot.

what?
huh?
how does dying give you more loot?

 

[myzko]

To be honest, my original statement was to make saving more like Diablo 2... which is to say, no saving at all, but checkpoints just incase of power outages or something similar.

Which still doesn't reward the player for not dying. In fact it's better to die a few times in Diablo 2 so you can get more loot.

what?
huh?
how does dying give you more loot?

maybe you can loot your own body, hahehaehaehaehae

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

how does dying give you more loot?

Monsters respawn, shrines reset. Maybe it gets a little harder each time but that only really becomes a problem at the end of the game.

 

[xdarkyrex]

how does dying give you more loot?

Monsters respawn, shrines reset. Maybe it gets a little harder each time but that only really becomes a problem at the end of the game.

You can just quit and restart to accomplish that
dying doesnt do anything, but it does cost you xp I beleive (i havent played it in a bit)


Plus I usually play on hardcore mode.
dying means I need to start a new character.
It really works well to make me think twice about how I choose to play the game.

 

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

No game is perfect. End

Damn this game is costing me 1/5 of my salary...but it's worth it! *back to eating termites and drinking rainwater*

+1 The auther of the article will probably follow this up with "Videogames: They're fun to play" article. Master of the obvious indeed.

True! And yet hype machine gave it 99/100 or 100/100. No product of humanity will ever be perfect.

Actually, most videogame review sites and magazines have to do at least 2 editorials a year explaining that a 10/10 or 5 stars does not mean perfect because of people saying "oh noZ!! ThIS game has teh flaws!! u suK!!" Usually, that point it reiterated several times...with CAPS LOCK.

Unfortunately, people still don't get it.

 

[Brother None]

Actually, most videogame review sites and magazines have to do at least 2 editorials a year explaining that a 10/10 or 5 stars does not mean perfect because of people saying "oh noZ!! ThIS game has teh flaws!! u suK!!" Usually, that point it reiterated several times...with CAPS LOCK.

Unfortunately, people still don't get it.

Have you ever heard of the dictum that any failure to understand what is written should first be considered the writer's fault, and only secondarily the reader's?

If people consistently fail to grasp the meaning of 10/10, maybe it's time to adapt the rating to standard perception, rather than somehow magically expecting the perception to shift for the media, which is a ridiculous concept

 

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

Have you ever heard of the dictum that any failure to understand what is written should first be considered the writer's fault, and only secondarily the reader's?

If people consistently fail to grasp the meaning of 10/10, maybe it's time to adapt the rating to standard perception, rather than somehow magically expecting the perception to shift for the media, which is a ridiculous concept

This would be a good point if we were talking about something more complicated, but we're talking about videogame reviews. When you read a 5/5 reviews that lists flaws in the game, you should be able to put 2+2 together and understand 5/5 does not mean perfect.

I have known this since I was 13 or 14, so it must not be that complicated. If you're a gamer, then it's assumed you have some clue as to what you're reading.

 

[Brother None]

Assume what you will, but if people need to explain it twice a year in editorials, then it's obviously not working. Saying "they're just being dumbasses for not understand that" doesn't change that people consistently fail to understand it. Since the readers obviously won't adapt, the writers should.

 

[EuphoricOneTriesAgain]

Assume what you will, but if people need to explain it twice a year in editorials, then it's obviously not working. Saying "they're just being dumbasses for not understand that" doesn't change that people consistently fail to understand it. Since the readers obviously won't adapt, the writers should.

What would you propose? No longer giving games a "perfect score?"

Consider this; EGM no longer gives game a 10 (which is rare anyway) unless it's perfect. This means the 10 would essentially be gone and their scale goes down a point. Now they get e-mails from angry fanboys because "their game" only got a 6/10. It's a lose - lose.

You guys do raise some interesting points over here (NMA).