Second streak of Bioshock reviews

[Sander]

I also disagree that RPGs are the best way to tell a story in a great setting like Bioshock *by definition*

cRPGs are often favoured for storytelling because the gameplay can compliment the story so well, but it depends fully on what kind of story you have to tell and how you want to tell it to decide which genre is ideal with it. Consider how good Levine is at doing this, I have no issues with him picking his style of deeper FPS to tell this story

I say that if you have a set, linear story RPGs are probably a relatively poor way to tell this story, since they do not lend themselves well to very linear stories. RPGs hinge on player choice, and that does not mesh well with a carefully crafted, linear story.
Planescape: Torment does this well, but avoids any main story-influencing choices (and consequences), although arguably Planescape's story is more about the characters than the story itself.

I don't see the mention of Dostoevsky, by the way

Check the youtube link Jiggly posted. He mentions that Andrew Ryan is a sort of Raskolnikow, in thinking that he is a sort of superhuman and do what he may regardless of consequences for individuals for the greater good. Of course, this misses key points in Dostoevsky's novel. But still, first time I've heard a mention of Dostoevsky in a video game review.

 

[Davaris]

Davaris: stop being silly, please. Yes, it's a shame that there are not as many RPGs (or any at all) as before. But to blame what is likely one of the best games of the FPS genre, and certainly artistically a great game for that is ridiculous.

I don't blame one game, I blame a trend of ever bigger, more expensive 'block buster' style games. At this point they happen to be FPS or FPS style games.

Peter Molyneux has been quoted as saying you need 100 people working on a AAA game to make it competitive. Peter isn't the only one thinking that way. Have you noticed the trend of games companies merging to get bigger? They have to get bigger or they are unable to make games that can compete. What do you think that means for the future of niche games?

Yes, we all want RPGs. That doesn't mean that every game that isn't an RPG is suddenly shite and should've been a completely different game.

I don't think that about every game, but I do think that about this particular game world. Sorry just my opinion.

If you honestly think that, it simply shows that you're narrowminded in vision and cannot appreciate that different people have different tastes.

As for different tastes, it doesn't bother me if people like different things, but I'll still think some things are rubbish. I'm sure you think some things are rubbish as well.

I for one highly enjoy both FPS games and RPGs, but you have to realise that they are different kinds of games.

Sure I realize that, but I am going to have a moan if *every* game that is released is an FPS or is FPS in style.

Imagine if every book that was ever released targeted one group. Wouldn't that bug you if you were not in that group?

 

[SuAside]

i was talking about how NMA was making fun of the game press handing out shitloads of 100/100 or 10/10 or 5/5's on irc and then some random guy shimes in: "yeah, NMA hates everything, they think it sucks".

sjeez... typical.

i told him most people on NMA liked the game (A LOT), but he then went on to quote Kharn with his anti-Hype post. since, ye know, one guy is skeptical, NMA like totally hates Bioshock.

so, NMA, you've heard it. stop liking Bioshock, it's not site policy. we're supposed to hate everything. now get to it.

 

[Killzig]

I wouldn't be surprised if Levine manages to use his money and new-found mainstream influence to nab System Shock, and make SS3 to finally transport his baby into the big public eye.

Rumor: EA is already working on SS3. EA Tiburon is developing it and it (safe assumption if rumor is true to follow) promises to be an absolutely terrible game.

With Bioshock's success he doesn't really need to go back and spend money on a franchise that at this point has less name recognition than his current brand.

X-Com is his favorite game ever. Maybe he can buy that and bring everyone a really neat "next gen" turn based game.

btw Kharn, IGN posted a PC review.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/813/813641p3.html

9.7

 

[Brother None]

I told him most people on NMA liked the game (A LOT), but he then went on to quote Kharn with his anti-Hype post. since, ye know, one guy is skeptical, NMA like totally hates Bioshock.

Did you point out I pre-ordered the Limited Edition of Bioshock a few days ago?

I dislike the hype. I pre-ordered the game. I'm not even remotely sceptical about the game.

Killzig: yeah, I saw it. It's the same as the XBox one except for a few lines. I'll try and do a PC review sweep once more come in (Metacritic still has only 4)

 

[Sorrow]

Good is 6/10.

Also, it lacks roleplaying.

Well, depending on the reviewer good could be 6/10. But since most reviews tend to be on the high side I generally think of good more in the range of 9/10 10/10, though once in a while there's a good game they rate lower for mysterious reasons.

Usually the descriptions of scale say that good is 6/10. The point of using 1-10 scale is that it's flexible - games are far from being perfect and usually they are good despite their flaws, not because they are close to perfection.
Giving 6/10 says that there's a room for improvement - a very important message. Giving 9/10 says that game is very close to perfection and that no significant improvement is possible, which makes developers more arrogant and less willing to improve their games.

And how do you figure it lacks roleplaying?

Lack of non-combat/non thievery skills, lack of diplomacy skill, lack of stat/skill-dependant dialog options.

BTW.
I would give 7-8/10 to Fallout and Fallout is my favourite cRPG ever.

 

[Brother None]

In a traditional scale of 1-10, 6 is adequate, 7 is above adequate, 8 is good, 9 is excellent, 10 is perfect.

Not sure where you got "6 is good" from, Sorrow. you must've been a very mediocre student in your high school days.

 

[Sorrow]

From descriptions in Polish game magazines.

 

[Brother None]

Polish magazines must be very mediocre high school students.

 

[Jiggly McNerdington]

In any case, the Baldur's Gate games are not great roleplaying games. Baldur's Gate 1 specifically lacks a lot of choices and consequences. Generally, you don't have a choice whatsoever outside of 'do I accept this quest or not' (the sole exception being the Dynaheir/Edwin/Minsc thingie). Baldur's Gate 2 suffers from the same problems, although the NPC interaction is a lot better and the game is less drawn out than Baldur's Gate 1. Also, the combat system is shit.

I guess I can kind of go with that. BG2 opens up a bit more and has better (Read: Any) NPC interaction, and I would still consider the BG series a pretty good RPG franchise. And surely you gotta admit, the giant storyarc going from BG1 to TotSC to BG2 to ToB is kind of neat.

But ehm, 20 hours is 'lengthy' now?

I think by today's standards for FPS length 20 hours is pretty hefty.

Usually the descriptions of scale say that good is 6/10. The point of using 1-10 scale is that it's flexible - games are far from being perfect and usually they are good despite their flaws, not because they are close to perfection.
Giving 6/10 says that there's a room for improvement - a very important message. Giving 9/10 says that game is very close to perfection and that no significant improvement is possible, which makes developers more arrogant and less willing to improve their games.

I suppose it makes sense about making developers arrogant, I'll give you that. Though for their scales saying 6/10 is good, I generally just ignore reviewer scales and mark higher numbers as good, with the occasional freak accident like Black and White. God damn you Black and White.

Lack of non-combat/non thievery skills, lack of diplomacy skill, lack of stat/skill-dependant dialog options.

True enough I guess, though there are stat dialog options I'm fairly sure. Though it's been so many years since I've played it I couldn't tell you for sure.

 

[Sorrow]

Polish magazines must be very mediocre high school students.

So? We are seeing a result of ratings made by great high school students now.

Lack of non-combat/non thievery skills, lack of diplomacy skill, lack of stat/skill-dependant dialog options.

True enough I guess, though there are stat dialog options I'm fairly sure. Though it's been so many years since I've played it I couldn't tell you for sure.

There are so called "reaction checks" - based on reaction modifier from charisma in some dialogues that may give more polite answer from NPCs. From what I remember very high charisma in BG often resulted in dice rolls going wrong and received a very bad reaction XDDDDDDDDD .
On the other hand it doesn't have a big impact on game - stats like Int and Wis have no effects on dialogues and thus a complete retard and a genius have the same dialog options.

BTW.
One thing that I absolutely hated about BG2 was that it was more a separate game from BG1 than a continuation - it forced a preset team of NPCs upon player completely ignoring consequences of his choices in BG1.
Also, I hated the retarded tendency to use instant kill scripts and unkillable NPCs.

 

[Autoduel76]

stats like Int and Wis have no effects on dialogues and thus a complete retard and a genius have the same dialog options.

There are only a handfull of commercial RPGs ever made that this isn't true for.

Its not a neccessary requirement for a good RPG.

 

[Nim82]

One thing that I absolutely hated about BG2 was that it was more a separate game from BG1 than a continuation - it forced a preset team of NPCs upon player completely ignoring consequences of his choices in BG1.

That happens in pretty much every sequel.

Fallout 2 assumes a certain end-game occurred in Fallout 1, obvious example being Tandi/Shady Sands/NCR.

In BGII I killed all the NPC's who I had either killed, or got killed in BG1 - including those at the beginning. It let you do that (if you wanted), exception being Imoen ofc. For me that compensated fine for them assuming I hadn't killed Jaheira. If you were good, you could just dump NPC's if you didn't want the rap of killing them. You could even complete the game lone wolf if you wanted - no team was forced upon you (unlike say, NWN2).