Bioshock or Bioshock 2?

A

AtomBomb

It Wandered In From the Wastes
I recently played and enjoyed both games....I do prefer the first over the second, but im curious how others feel. So which do you like more out of the two?
 
The first one. I never finished the second game.
 
Second one is better in gameplay but the first one is better in pretty much everything els.
 
First one has a more coherent world.

In second one you're supposedly a Big Daddy but you get hurt just as easily as a regular human. Pfft.
 
Makta said:
Second one is better in gameplay but the first one is better in pretty much everything els.
Click to expand...
Basically this. I mean, really, that says it all. The second did a very convincing job of trying to shoehorn the background events that set the game in motion, and the multiplayer was a clever way to "tell the story" of the civil war in Rapture that took place shortly before Jack's arrival in the first game. But as I said, they were shoehorned, and it didn't take much effort to see the zippers in the back showing, so to speak.

In second one you're supposedly a Big Daddy but you get hurt just as easily as a regular human. Pfft.
Click to expand...
That's actually one of the things they did well in explaining away. Prototype Big Daddy's that were much less unstoppable automatons and more psychotic and unstable science zombies. The "Minerva's Den" DLC was easily the best experience in all of BS2, with an ending that pulled all sorts of emotions from the player, and a twist that could respectably stand beside WYK. And it all revolved around what they were able to do with the retconning of Big Daddies. Great narrative stuff, but again, the seams show if you already know that it's a retcon.

BS2 made many of the same mistakes that FO3 did, with respect to the series it was tied to, and yet because it was a beautiful narrative, I couldn't hate it for the same reasons that I do FO3. I still prefer the first game far more, and I consider the sequel a non-canonical spin-off, but I liked it as a game (minus the grind to 50 in the multiplayer... that was excessive). It doesn't "beat" BioShock, but it's still damn enjoyable to play.
 
SuAside said:
aenemic said:
System Shock 2.
Click to expand...
Hah. That's a bit like saying Wasteland 1 is the best Fallout. :lol:
Click to expand...

I disagree. Fallout is its own monster. And yes, Bioshock does have some good qualities, but everything Bioshock did well, System Shock 2 already did much much better. Fallout isn't a watered down (pun intended) version of Wasteland.

But on topic, snarky remarks aside. Out of the two I much preferred Bioshock 1 over 2. If you haven't played either and want to check them out, there's absolutely no reason not to start with the first and then play the sequel if you enjoyed it.

The first game had good atmosphere, a decent plot and was enjoyable in its simplicity. Bioshock 2 just felt like too much of everything.
 
SuAside said:
Hah. That's a bit like saying Wasteland 1 is the best Fallout. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not really.

Fallout was a more complex game than Wasteland. Bioshock is a less complex game than System Shock 2. The only improvement Bioshock has over System Shock 2 is the graphics. In regards to gameplay mechanics, everything else about it was a decline.
 
Don't like them both. It doesn't feel like a shooter, yet it doesn't feel like it's anything else too. For me it's like having a peg-leg, you get to be a pirate, but also an invalid.
 
shihonage said:
Fallout was a more complex game than Wasteland.
Click to expand...
for combat? yes.
but for puzzle, dungeon, skill usage? no.
actually Fallout's rule is quite easy to use and situation itself is easy to find answer to solve. on the other hand Wasteland's situation is quite difficult to find answer. skill looks ambiguous unlike Fallout's repair, science and speech. plus in wasteland sometime should use attributes to solve. and there's climbing and swimming which used to get out of certain place.
and for dialog? keyword system is harder than other dialog system since no answer is given in distractors.
 
A game's internal complexity is not judged by how hard it makes the player struggle with counterintuitive puzzles, ambiguously defined skills, or poorly functioning UI.
 
shihonage said:
A game's internal complexity is not judged by how hard it makes the player struggle with counterintuitive puzzles, ambiguously defined skills, or poorly functioning UI.
Click to expand...
it just looks ambiguously but actually works well. if you are in stage and spectators are mad then it is hard to think what to do. but there's lots of solution. you can use your agility, acrobatics or other attribute and skills. Wasteland's ambiguousness is coming from various solution. and for UI, wasteland has quite good UI. you can change skill order. eidetic means good puzzle? I don't know. but Wasteland's puzzles are not ridiculous. it's reasonable. you can find out solution from hints. for example you can learn answer to puzzler's last quiz from some hints in Quarz's bar.
 
still, the comparison between bioschock to Systemschock and Fallout to Wasteland isnt really good.

I think Fallout was a game for it self that was very heavily influenced by Wasteland. But Bioschock was a lot closer to the gameplay, story and pretty much anything else in Siystem Schock 2. It pretty much WAS System Schock underwater. Except that it was offering less in everything. That however doesnt mean that Bioschock was bad. Just taht SS2 was better. Except for the graphics.
 
Crni Vuk said:
still, the comparison between bioschock to Systemschock and Fallout to Wasteland isnt really good.

I think Fallout was a game for it self that was very heavily influenced by Wasteland. But Bioschock was a lot closer to the gameplay, story and pretty much anything else in Siystem Schock 2. It pretty much WAS System Schock underwater. Except that it was offering less in everything. That however doesnt mean that Bioschock was bad. Just taht SS2 was better. Except for the graphics.
Click to expand...

I did play SS2 back in the days but i can't remember much from it to be honnest. Could you give me some examples what was "the same" as BS?
The only thing i remember right of the bat that was better/worse depending on who you ask was that you had less ammo etc.

Edit: Or maybe that was due to me being bad at games compare to now :P
 
Makta said:
Crni Vuk said:
still, the comparison between bioschock to Systemschock and Fallout to Wasteland isnt really good.

I think Fallout was a game for it self that was very heavily influenced by Wasteland. But Bioschock was a lot closer to the gameplay, story and pretty much anything else in Siystem Schock 2. It pretty much WAS System Schock underwater. Except that it was offering less in everything. That however doesnt mean that Bioschock was bad. Just taht SS2 was better. Except for the graphics.
Click to expand...

I did play SS2 back in the days but i can't remember much from it to be honnest. Could you give me some examples what was "the same" as BS?
The only thing i remember right of the bat that was better/worse depending on who you ask was that you had less ammo etc.

Edit: Or maybe that was due to me being bad at games compare to now :P
Click to expand...

As for what was "the same", it's basically the same type game at the core. The plot in Bioshock is reminiscent of SS2, the gameplay is very much alike (first person shooter with some rpg-ish aspects, hacking is similar, there's a research element, you have powers which you can level up, you get to choose what to specialize in etc). It's just that on all these areas, SS2 was more complex and unforgiving.

As for my personal opinion, everything was also better in SS2. Ammo was more scarce, you HAD to specialize and couldn't simply switch powers to change your "build" along the way. Character progression wasn't limited to what powers you had equipped, you had character stats and a range of skills. Weapons broke down and had to be repaired. If you didn't have the ability to repair, you had to find weapons in good shape and be even more careful with using them strategically as not to waste them. The plot was much better, the atmosphere was much spookier and creepy. Research didn't consist of spamming camera shots on enemies, instead you had to collect the appropriate chemicals. Research even had a dedicated skill that you didn't need to specialize in to complete the game, but gained much benefit from if you did. Exploration feels much more rewarding as resources are so scarce. And the challenge of the game has you constantly on edge, leaving you with a looming fear of what you'll run into next. I don't feel Bioshock had the same level of threat.

All this pretty much did that when I played Bioshock I felt like I played a very much simplified SS2 in a different setting but with very similar gameplay and story. I did enjoy it on its own merits, but it had absolutely nothing that made it better than its predecessor. Except for the prettier graphics, which is really the only complaint I have with SS2. It is old and it's from a time where 3D graphics were pretty ugly. But the game is to damn good that it doesn't bother me, and after only a short time of playing you get used to it. There's also something about the enemies' 3D models that make them a bit creepier than if they had been highly detailed modern 3D models.

SS2 is really one of those games that everyone who is interested in the genre should dig up and play at least once. It's just such a great game, and has left such a big impact on these types of games. It's the Fallout of the exploration/rpg/fps genre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top