BioShock reviews, penultimate roundup?

[xdarkyrex]

There should be an ironman mode for this game.
I also agree with the article quoted to a point, although I'd give it a higher rating.

Death should be a big deal.

Instead of making games where you will without a doubt die 10 times before beating it, they should just make games where you can actually avoid dying from the beginning to the end, and then create a diablo2-esque save game system with hardcore mode option for it.

Death is taken too lightly in games.
It feels cheap and meaningless.

 

[Sorrow]

I agree with that. I prefer games that are beatable without dying too.
It would be silly if for example a hero of a movie/book would die 20 times during action of the movie/book.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Death should be a big deal.

Not always, depends on the plot and setting. Take the Darkness, that covered up the auto reload system by having the darkness say it wouldn't let you die. Which fitted so well with the game, only spoiled by having you go back in time to the last save point rather than resurecting you like in BioShock.

Though I do wish more games took a leaf out of Fallout's book and had a cutscene, or something at least. Showing the consequences of you dying.

Instead of making games where you will without a doubt die 10 times before beating it

Well that all depends on skill and reflexes, I sure there are plenty of gamers who can get through most shooters quite easily. I've played games before where I've been able to breeze through without being killed, though usually it's the jumping puzzles that get me.

 

[The Bigs]

Couldn't find the article... I guess it wasn't gamasutra then, but Google didn't give me any answers... sorry

I still don't see what your point is, frankly... if you don't like the system of "no death", then DON'T DIE!!! and use the quicksave! Why do you want me, the guy who plays games because they are fun and doesn't like death because it is not fun, to die? I like the option of not having to reload. You don't like the system the developers did for people like me, go use the quicksaving feature because they put it there for people like YOU.

There's really no discussion here... we have different tastes and the developers tried to please both of us. Some people like easier games. I, for example, play the games on the easy setting most of the time because I don't have time (nor will) to die and load a thousand times. When I buy a game that is too difficult for me, I feel disappointed, and usually cheat to beat the game (I bought it, I want to finish the thing). Games with such options don't force me to cheat and I like that.

You want to die a thousand times, quicksave every five minutes, because you think death should be a big deal, and stare at the painfully long loading screens, that's fine, you masochist... but you don't have to torture ME.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Not always, depends on the plot and setting. Take the Darkness, that covered up the auto reload system by having the darkness say it wouldn't let you die. Which fitted so well with the game, only spoiled by having you go back in time to the last save point rather than resurecting you like in BioShock.

The darkness had a wonderful system, and I also liked bioshocks to a point. But since bioshock is a survival horror, its hard to feel the imperative to survive if dying means nothing, yeah? The darkness might have been considered one in some regards, but I think that dying was a main theme of the gameplay and a crucial plot device, which made it an exception to the rule.

Well that all depends on skill and reflexes, I sure there are plenty of gamers who can get through most shooters quite easily. I've played games before where I've been able to breeze through without being killed, though usually it's the jumping puzzles that get me.

perhaps a setting system, along the lines of
-forgiving (infinite lives and respawns and anytime saves)
-moderate (autosaves only and resurrection with penalties for dying)
-brutal (save on quit only, severe and massive penalties for death)

and ontop of that, there is a seperate scale for enemy stength that is also easy, normal, or hard (constitutes your character power, enemy power, and enemy AI)

I'm sort of being idealistic, as this idea flies in the face of gaming trends being accessible to the lowest common denominator of gaming.

I would have enjoyed bioshock more if every time you were resurrected you had a permanent loss of stats of some type, and you had to re-salvage your weaponry from your corpse, and big daddies remembered you.

I mean, shit, for me its gotten to the point where i play most games on the hard setting the first time through, and I still manage to beat them with ease.

I can guarantee when I play halo 3 I will play it on heroic the first time through.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

And the Escapist's Zero Punctuation piece. The Escapist seems to have been making a drive to turn from being intelligently critical to amusingly controversial, continuing here, noting Bioshock is dumbed down for the console tards, and that your only real choice is to be "Mother Teresa or a baby eater."

Do you have to be subscribed to read The Escapist these days? As I can't see the article just the comments. But why is only two choices in a run and gun shooter dumbed down? That's one more than you get with most other fps games.

The darkness had a wonderful system, and I also liked bioshocks to a point. But since bioshock is a survival horror, its hard to feel the imperative to survive if dying means nothing, yeah? The darkness might have been considered one in some regards, but I think that dying was a main theme of the gameplay and a crucial plot device, which made it an exception to the rule.

The Darkness had the same system as Halo, auto-reloading the last saved checkpoint if you die. It just hid it better by adding an interesting loading screen and a little speech by the Darkness itself. But it goes to show that death need not be a big thing in gaming. Same with Torment and BioShock, dying doesn't figure into BioShock's plot. The game doesn't hinge on whether you live or die, except for one minute section of the game there's no consequences to you dying. While you're there, you're able to break the deadlock of the situation in Rapture, if you was to die permanently then the status quo would just continue as before. Unlike other some games where the fate of the world depends on your success or failure. To call BioShock simply a survival horror is a taking very simplistic view of the game. While there are parts that can make you jump it isn't really going for the same scare factor as horror games.

perhaps a setting system, along the lines of

There's already a perfect save system, save where, when and whenever you want. It's perfect no perhaps or maybe about it. Why is it perfect because it caters to gamers of all abilities and no one forces you to use it if you want more of a challenge.

I would have enjoyed bioshock more if every time you were resurrected you had a permanent loss of stats of some type, and you had to re-salvage your weaponry from your corpse, and big daddies remembered you.

Big Daddies do sometimes remember you, I've been attacked by a few as soon as I've come into view after resurrection. But I agree it would of been better to have to scavenge your inventory (not from your corpse though) only because it didn't make sense that the chamber would transport/reconstruct those items.

I mean, shit, for me its gotten to the point where i play most games on the hard setting the first time through, and I still manage to beat them with ease.

I can guarantee when I play halo 3 I will play it on heroic the first time through.

Well that's what the settings are there for, to offer more of a challenge to seasoned gamers. If you keep on playing on the hard settings and you're not as good as you think you are. Then no wonder you think games are set up so you can't avoid dying at least once.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Well that's what the settings are there for, to offer more of a challenge to seasoned gamers. If you keep on playing on the hard settings and you're not as good as you think you are. Then no wonder you think games are set up so you can't avoid dying at least once.

lol did you ever play halo 2 on legendary?
to get a real challenge out of halo i had to welcome also the legendary snipers into the game, which were not hard... they were just stupid.

instant kill in under a second if you were within sight range of them.

that aside, the rest of the game was appropriately challenging and I rarely died except at a few crucially challenging parts.

I admit that bioshock handled the plot well to allow for resurrection, but a save system that allows for any save at any time is hardly perfect. I do not like it. period. It is not fun in games that are not rpgs for me. But that still disregards the fact that there are people out there who want a strict system that doesnt trivialize their failures and thusly make the game feel empty. I don't understand how you can fail to see the value of achievement earned through skill and practice as opposed to consistent game exploitation?

 

[Kyuu]

But that still disregards the fact that there are people out there who want a strict system that doesnt trivialize their failures and thusly make the game feel empty. I don't understand how you can fail to see the value of achievement earned through skill and practice as opposed to consistent game exploitation?

Yeah... but it's not the save system that makes for "exploitation." It's the person who uses the save system that way who makes for it. What you seem to be failing to grasp is the a save anywhere at anytime system allows for the type of thing you're advocating. You can choose when and where to save, and if you want to be "punished" (what some people would call irritated and forced to endure mind-numbing repetition, which isn't what playing a game should be about) for dying, then only save, say at the beginning of a level. Or after crucial plot points. Or whatever.

And if you're saying that in, say, a game like Halo 2, playing on legendary, you should be forced to replay the entire level if you die, or even large portions of the level, then that's just insane. No one would ever bother with it, except the most masochistic of people. It's simply far too easy to die, and even with the checkpoint system, it can get extremely aggravating having to replay certain parts multiple times.

 

[The Bigs]

Think Fallout... want to make it a thousand times harder?
It's not the amount of health you start with or how much damage the enemy does... or even how developed your character is.
To make fallout a thousand times harder, remove the option to talk to people about the same things... just like real life: you say something stupid, you're stuck with it, people ain't forgiving you, and you have to deal with the consequences. That would suck huh? Probably make the game so hard to the point of being unplayable

real games should be different than real life (in my opinion at least. I can understand you thinking otherwise) because real life sucks.

Take fallout again: In case of a nuclear holocaust, the ones who didn't die on the horrible balls of fiery doom would die on the [much more] unforgiving hellish wastelands

games will ALWAYS* be easier than life... how much easier is up to the developer. You can play on the hardestestest difficulty ever, it will still be easy

(as in: I don't know the future, so that can change)


I play games to feel like a hero (most of the time). Dying is unheroic. I'd rather die and reappear on a chamber than die than magically warping back in time to the point I had full life and ammo, moments before my death.

Heh, my post is a lot like Kyuu's post... 2 minutes apart... I hadn't read his post before posting mine... just saying "its coincidence"

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

lol did you ever play halo 2 on legendary?

Nope I've only just picked up the first one this week.

but a save system that allows for any save at any time is hardly perfect.

It is perfect. Because it caters for every type of gamer and every quality of gamer. It's not the system's fault if you are unable to control your urge to use the quick save function. Do you also have to use any cheats, just because they are there?

But that still disregards the fact that there are people out there who want a strict system that doesnt trivialize their failures and thusly make the game feel empty.

How does the checkpoint save system not trivialize failure? I certainly didn't get a profound or satisfying feeling from Halo's save system. In fact I was cursing my head off when I couldn't find a checkpoint so I could save my progress and go and make supper. Or after a pitched battle with the flood I walked around a corner straight into a rocket (silly me tried to catch it with my telekinesis plasmid). Or missed the big jump and had to do the whole level final again, since there were no savepoints. My deaths feel any different or meaningful as the game auto loaded my last checkpoint.

I don't understand how you can fail to see the value of achievement earned through skill and practice as opposed to consistent game exploitation?

Because no one forces me to save fail and reload, but it puts me off a game if I can't save when and where I want because I don't always have the luxury of being able to play on to the next check point. And replaying the same section again and again just because there's a restrictive save system just makes me homicidal. People who are good at games might still save often, but will hardly ever reload. And saving has little to do with skill, too often you'll die due to a mistake not a lack of skill. Or it's just as likely you'll reach the next checkpoint through sheer luck.

 

[Sorrow]

To make fallout a thousand times harder, remove the option to talk to people about the same things... just like real life: you say something stupid, you're stuck with it, people ain't forgiving you, and you have to deal with the consequences. That would suck huh?

No.

Probably make the game so hard to the point of being unplayable

Do you have some problems with not saying stupid things in RL or something?

real games should be different than real life (in my opinion at least. I can understand you thinking otherwise) because real life sucks.

There are a lot of people whose lives don't suck.

Take fallout again: In case of a nuclear holocaust, the ones who didn't die on the horrible balls of fiery doom would die on the [much more] unforgiving hellish wastelands

They do.

I play games to feel like a hero (most of the time). Dying is unheroic. I'd rather die and reappear on a chamber than die than magically warping back in time to the point I had full life and ammo, moments before my death.

How about a game that gives player a reasonable challenge?

 

[Lexx]

I play games to feel like a hero (most of the time). Dying is unheroic. I'd rather die and reappear on a chamber than die than magically warping back in time to the point I had full life and ammo, moments before my death.

I bet, you like Oblivon.

 

[Morbus]

games will ALWAYS* be easier than life... how much easier is up to the developer. You can play on the hardestestest difficulty ever, it will still be easy

Will they? Well, I NEVER died in real life, and in games I died quite a few times. Doesn't that show that games are harder than (my) life?

 

[psychosomatic]

The Bigs: I still don't see what your point is, frankly... if you don't like the system of "no death", then DON'T DIE!!! and use the quicksave! Why do you want me, the guy who plays games because they are fun and doesn't like death because it is not fun, to die?

I was simply stating that if any game does have an immortality scheme set up, then it should be done properly (in a convincing context) otherwise I could find the game unbelievable, and would thus argue difficult to immerse myself in (unless of course I circumvented it with the quick save system).

Of course, I would like to avoid skirting over a major facet of the main character if I could. It would be nice if it was integrated properly. I'm not making some binary argument where you either have death or you have immortality. Just that it should be appropriate, regardless of what my personal tastes are (this is an objective argument). When I said "the immortality scheme in Torment had a pretty big impact on how I viewed the gameworld", I didn't mean it in a wholly negative sense or anything, in case that's where you got your "don't die!!!" point from. Like others on this forum have pointed out, it cheapens the idea of death. It becomes sort of...mindless. In such an involving game with the vaunted immersive dialogue and setting, I would hope they took care to ensure that this death element is done properly.

Anyways, its ok that you can't find the article! I've read some interesting points on this forum anyways.

And on a side note, I'm not a masochist. I play carefully, and happen to be decent at shooting things/people or racking my brain for cool new ways to use the environment to my advantage.

 

[xdarkyrex]

But that still disregards the fact that there are people out there who want a strict system that doesnt trivialize their failures and thusly make the game feel empty.

How does the checkpoint save system not trivialize failure? I certainly didn't get a profound or satisfying feeling from Halo's save system. In fact I was cursing my head off when I couldn't find a checkpoint so I could save my progress and go and make supper. Or after a pitched battle with the flood I walked around a corner straight into a rocket (silly me tried to catch it with my telekinesis plasmid). Or missed the big jump and had to do the whole level final again, since there were no savepoints. My deaths feel any different or meaningful as the game auto loaded my last checkpoint.

Sorry, I didn't bring up a checkpoint saves in this thread, that was the other thread. (and I think by the end of it I renounced the idea as inferior to the Diablo 2 save system, which is what I am supporting in this thread, which is to say, save on exit only.)

The point is one could argue that logic about Fallout 3 also, and infact we have heard this foolish argument over and over again. "if you don't like it don't do it" or "don't use the fatman if you think it's dumb" or "don't drink out of toilets if you don't like it"

That is a faulty argument.
I play games they way they are meant to be played.
But I would like one that is meant to be played in the way I am talking about, where death is a big deal. Perhaps even as serious as it is in most pen and paper RPG's. Perhaps Bioshock could have a system more like ParanoiaRPG, a limited number of clones that eventually run out. Or perhaps each vita chamber only has one charge?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Sorry, I didn't bring up a checkpoint saves in this thread, that was the other thread. (and I think by the end of it I renounced the idea as inferior to the Diablo 2 save system, which is what I am supporting in this thread, which is to say, save on exit only.)

Different thread same discussion. Diablo 2's system is very flawed, what happens if the game crashes or there's a power cut etc. Do you really want to have to do it all over again because of some event out of your control?

The point is one could argue that logic about Fallout 3 also, and infact we have heard this foolish argument over and over again. "if you don't like it don't do it" or "don't use the fatman if you think it's dumb" or "don't drink out of toilets if you don't like it"

That is a faulty argument.

You have the faulty argument, comparing a perfect save system that you aren't forced to use against a weapon that doesn't fit the setting and breaks immersun just by existing. And probably is the only thing that can defeat the behemoth from the sounds of it.

I play games they way they are meant to be played.
But I would like one that is meant to be played in the way I am talking about, where death is a big deal.

And just because a game has unrestrictive saving doesn't mean that it is meant to be played with you saving every five seconds. Face it death hasn't been a big deal in gaming since, well ever, and it's never likely to be in single player. Unrestrictive saving doesn't make death meaningless. Lack of response to your death (end movies, stastics etc) makes death meaningless.

Perhaps Bioshock could have a system more like...

BioShock already has a system, it's a bit late to be discussing what could be. Bioshock's system fits the game it doesn't make it any easier by avoiding reloading.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Sorry, I didn't bring up a checkpoint saves in this thread, that was the other thread. (and I think by the end of it I renounced the idea as inferior to the Diablo 2 save system, which is what I am supporting in this thread, which is to say, save on exit only.)

Different thread same discussion. Diablo 2's system is very flawed, what happens if the game crashes or there's a power cut etc. Do you really want to have to do it all over again because of some event out of your control?

It autosaves periodically.

But that doesnt matter, because it saves over the autosave once you quit, and there is no load option.


And I'm also going to have to argue that being incapable of defeat also breaks immersion just as much as a fatman does.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

It autosaves periodically.

Tough though if it crashes just before it's due to autosave.

But that doesnt matter, because it saves over the autosave once you quit, and there is no load option.

How many posts in the tech forums are from people who have encountered a bug or save game corruption and have only been using the one save slot? A lot, and what happens? They're screwed and have to start over (or they give up completely), that's the same situation you'd get with Diablo 2's pathetic save system.

And I'm also going to have to argue that being incapable of defeat also breaks immersion just as much as a fatman does.

What defeat? There's no defeat in single player story based games. No matter what the save system you keep on replaying until you reach the end.

 

[xdarkyrex]

And I'm also going to have to argue that being incapable of defeat also breaks immersion just as much as a fatman does.

What defeat? There's no defeat in single player story based games. No matter what the save system you keep on replaying until you reach the end.

Well thats the complaint, there is no such thing as failure.
Without the possibility of failure, success feels empty.

 

[Kyuu]

Well thats the complaint, there is no such thing as failure.
Without the possibility of failure, success feels empty.

Not really. The consequences of failure don't have to be extreme (such as having to start the game over again) for success to feel somewhat meaningful. For some, games aren't even about that; it's just about having fun and not having to put work into it, and yes, game developers have to cater to that. Sometimes, that's what I feel like having with my games. Even when I want a challenge, I don't feel that failing the challenge should involve disastrous consequences. More than likely, I'd just walk away from the game, and never pick up another game that functioned that way. Who wants to lose hours, days, weeks of gameplay because they died once? Maybe you do, and a save anywhere system allows that. Just. Don't. Save. Except. When. You. Feel. It's. Appropriate. For. You.

How many posts in the tech forums are from people who have encountered a bug or save game corruption and have only been using the one save slot? A lot, and what happens? They're screwed and have to start over (or they give up completely), that's the same situation you'd get with Diablo 2's pathetic save system.

I've never heard of such a thing happening with Diablo 2's save system. Perhaps it has happened, but I've never experienced it, and I've spent many, many hours on that game with several characters. And if you're worried about it, it's not too hard to make a back-up of the save folder periodically.

Also, Diablo 2 is a not an example of a save system that provides extreme consequences for failure in any case. You never have to reload at some earlier point. You die, you go get your body, nothing lost, except some PKer might get your ear in multiplayer. Except for in whatever the hardest difficulty was called (been a while), where you lost experience for dying, and dying was easy. And guess what? A lot of people, myself and my friends included, hated playing on that difficulty. Dying and losing experience accumulated over the course of hours and hours was just frustrating and added no enjoyment whatsoever.