In everything from the context (playing a big daddy itself) to the plasmids, the combat, the graphics and the storytelling, Bioshock 2 improved on the original Bioshock in almost everyway. There is not a single (statistically) significant thing that this sequel did not improve upon its original.
Yet it was panned, not universally but at some magnitude, for "following too closely to the original." Is this really a valid criticism? Is this worth relegating the game an entire letter grade? Is 1 game (the original) all it takes before a sequel that is similar yet improved becomes "too similar to previous iterations"?
Was this line of thought the first instance of video game review displaying a lack of journalistic integrity?
well to be fair, the game had much better gameplay, guns, enemies, etc
but storytelling was worse, and the villian this time wasn't up to par with the first one, but at least it didn't had an unnecessary boss fight at the end
And the first time you see the floating city is the best part of Infinite
So basically play the first twenty minutes of that, and you can call it a day. If you're not feeling satisfied, try saying "WOW WHAT A MIND-SCREW!" out loud when you're done
You have got to be fucking kidding me. Talk up the gameplay or level design but if you think the story was even worth wiping your ass with you need to go Cobain yourself right now.
Infinite even had a better story than that forced nonsensical pile of fetid cum stains that was 2. I can't take any of your opinions seriously if you actually think 2's story is even ok. It's right at the bottom of the gaming barrel with Call of Juarez the Cartel and Pariah.
Bioshock 2 is probably my favorite out of the three, and I felt far more invested in Eleanor than I ever felt in Elizabeth.
It's a straight up improvement over the original gameplay-wise, but it didn't have the element of introducing a cool setting that's rarely explored [underwater city], nor an antagonist with such a commanding presence as Andrew Ryan. I don't think there's any line in the entire game that comes even close to being as memorable as "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?"
That is why it was easier for the gaming press to look at it and say "Oh, how underwhelming. We've seen all this before."
Bioshock 2 didn't have LE EPIC TWEEST like Bioshock and Infinite did, and you know casuals just lap that shit up. Although admittedly Bioshock's twist is at least pretty interesting, B:I's was hot garbage.
>Infinite was the best of the three.
Good lord no.
> there is not a single (statistically) significant thing
Get your statistics out of my subjective art medium, you fuck. "Doesn't feel fresh enough for me" is always valid criticism.
The act of discovering and exploring an underwater city was one of the defining aspects of the first one. How effective can that be if you're rediscovering the same fictional setting again?
> B:I's was hot garbage
> Okay so how can we cleanly resolve this story?
> BY LOUDLY DISCARDING ALL RULES OF REALITY
> Just tell them it's philosophical or some shit
> Toss in two characters who like to banter about quantum mechanics
> Look at all those lighthouses
> That probably means something right?
> and u were the bad guy all along bro
If they exist in all realities then doesn't that mean they exist in realities where there wasn't a Columbia and there was no way they could've flipped a coin in the sky?
Constants my ass
Do the player character and the villain character actually have any personality traits in common? Is there anything about them that connects them as being the same person, other than "somebody said so?"
I swear, the more I saw Comstock in Infinite ramble on about how his visions of Columbia's radiant future were brought forth by an Archangel of God I was completely ready to have Shodan make an appearance.
That would have been glorious.
The ending was shit. The multiplayer mode was surprisingly enjoyable.
Story, atmosphere, and characters all suffered. Improved on nothing of worth, besides being able to drill my enemies with that gas guzzler on my arm. Other than that it was worse.
Stories are significant. In cases like rpgs your story and your atmosphere and your characters are more than half your game. In my opinion none of these games are very fun shooters. They're alright I guess because of the powers but really what sold me about BioShock 1 was Andrew Ryan, that opening scene unto rapture, rapture itself, and would you kindly. That was BioShock for me and the best 2 gave me was the scene where you play the little sister, which was cool but didn't stack up and wasn't really pertinent to the overarching plot.