To compliment the release of the demo, here's a few selected (it's impossible to cover all now) reviews of BioShock. Quote from the ever-reliable GamerNode:<blockquote>I was a little worried at first, because the first hour or two of the game really gave no indication that BioShock is anything other than a good looking generic shooter. Just as I was wondering what would happen if I were the first person to give BioShock a non-awesome score, things picked up, and I knew I didn't have to worry any longer, and that I was in for a hell of a ride.
Unlike a lot of games, BioShock isn't successful because of the gameplay; it works because of the narrative and atmosphere. Judging the action and combat alone, it really isn't that great of a game. Sure, the plasmids (basically genetic weaponry you equip) are a lot of fun, and some of them are entertaining to use, but there's nothing too original, and most people will just stick with the basic few plasmids and weapons needed to get through most of the game. Much like Halo and Gears, what Bioshock does right isn't necessarily what it contains, but rather how it packages it all together better than anyone else.
The mix of the 1960s idea of sci-fi with retro environments which would fit in Fallout 3 add a lot of nice touches to the overall game. In a move I absolutely love, almost all of the story is gathered via audio recordings, or what's basically radio chatter (like MGS, but without the big screen). It's hard to explain, but there's just something fun about listening to a recording about how someone went crazy and killed/maimed/tortured/abandoned/mutated X amount of people in the room you're in. The lights flicker, you hear strange sounds and quickly spin around on full alert... It's just great.
Like I said, though, the combat and general gameplay really aren't anything you're going to go apeshit over. (Assuming you play a decent number of games, that is.) Most of the action is pretty basic stuff, and even the biggest enemies in the game require little strategic planning to beat, thanks to the fact that there's absolutely no penalty at all for dying other than a short walk back to where you fell.</blockquote>AtomicGamer discussed downsides:<blockquote>There are a couple of downsides to BioShock, but they're pretty minimal. One is that the mini-game for "hacking", 1950s-style, gets tiresome after dozens of attempts. The developers might have done well to mix it up with different mini-games when you hack different things. The other issue is that there's no multiplayer, but at the same time I doubt the somewhat popular belief that a game is always better with multiplayer than without. BioShock might actually be less liked if it shipped with sub-par multiplayer, and while the action does seem like it'd lend itself well to online play - either through competitive or cooperative modes - we do have to remember that this is a brand new franchise, something we don't see too often, so it was more important for the creators to make a damn solid game doing what they know best. An over-extension of their talents might have turned out worse.
(...)
Some will complain that it's not open enough, that you can't travel anywhere in Rapture at once and "do anything you like". But that phrase, to "do anything you like" in the context of a video game, is always a letdown to some extent or another. This is one place where I've got to take a stand and say that if BioShock were more like that, the game would have been entirely different, not nearly as engrossing as it is, and wouldn't have had the kind of unique narrative that we are getting. You do often retrace your steps throughout any given level, but I never found that the backtracking done was in any way boring or tedious.</blockquote>Link: Game Chronicles review (100/100).
Link: Yahoo! Games review (100/100).
Link: Game Talk review (100/100).
Link: AtomicGamer review (96/100).
Link: GamerNode review (95/100).
Link: ActionTrip review (92/100).
Link: GameSpot review (90/100).
Unlike a lot of games, BioShock isn't successful because of the gameplay; it works because of the narrative and atmosphere. Judging the action and combat alone, it really isn't that great of a game. Sure, the plasmids (basically genetic weaponry you equip) are a lot of fun, and some of them are entertaining to use, but there's nothing too original, and most people will just stick with the basic few plasmids and weapons needed to get through most of the game. Much like Halo and Gears, what Bioshock does right isn't necessarily what it contains, but rather how it packages it all together better than anyone else.
The mix of the 1960s idea of sci-fi with retro environments which would fit in Fallout 3 add a lot of nice touches to the overall game. In a move I absolutely love, almost all of the story is gathered via audio recordings, or what's basically radio chatter (like MGS, but without the big screen). It's hard to explain, but there's just something fun about listening to a recording about how someone went crazy and killed/maimed/tortured/abandoned/mutated X amount of people in the room you're in. The lights flicker, you hear strange sounds and quickly spin around on full alert... It's just great.
Like I said, though, the combat and general gameplay really aren't anything you're going to go apeshit over. (Assuming you play a decent number of games, that is.) Most of the action is pretty basic stuff, and even the biggest enemies in the game require little strategic planning to beat, thanks to the fact that there's absolutely no penalty at all for dying other than a short walk back to where you fell.</blockquote>AtomicGamer discussed downsides:<blockquote>There are a couple of downsides to BioShock, but they're pretty minimal. One is that the mini-game for "hacking", 1950s-style, gets tiresome after dozens of attempts. The developers might have done well to mix it up with different mini-games when you hack different things. The other issue is that there's no multiplayer, but at the same time I doubt the somewhat popular belief that a game is always better with multiplayer than without. BioShock might actually be less liked if it shipped with sub-par multiplayer, and while the action does seem like it'd lend itself well to online play - either through competitive or cooperative modes - we do have to remember that this is a brand new franchise, something we don't see too often, so it was more important for the creators to make a damn solid game doing what they know best. An over-extension of their talents might have turned out worse.
(...)
Some will complain that it's not open enough, that you can't travel anywhere in Rapture at once and "do anything you like". But that phrase, to "do anything you like" in the context of a video game, is always a letdown to some extent or another. This is one place where I've got to take a stand and say that if BioShock were more like that, the game would have been entirely different, not nearly as engrossing as it is, and wouldn't have had the kind of unique narrative that we are getting. You do often retrace your steps throughout any given level, but I never found that the backtracking done was in any way boring or tedious.</blockquote>Link: Game Chronicles review (100/100).
Link: Yahoo! Games review (100/100).
Link: Game Talk review (100/100).
Link: AtomicGamer review (96/100).
Link: GamerNode review (95/100).
Link: ActionTrip review (92/100).
Link: GameSpot review (90/100).
