Upvote
0
Bioshock
- Thread starter Zips
- Start date
I feel exactly the opposite about SP games- I want a game that will get me so invoveld by the plot and atmosphere that, like a good book, I wouldnt be able to put away and miss it when I go to work.
Upvote
0
There's 87 plasmids; research system; character growth; weapon upgrading; exploring and etc in the full game.
Keep that in mind.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Well, I bought the 360 version for 50 bucks at Circuit City. Can't wait to play beyond the demo level!
Upvote
0
I've only played the demo of Bioshock.
Nice graphics.
System Shock, I liked a lot, it was new and fresh.
System Shock 2, I did not appreciate.
TF2 for the world !!!
I ran the Demo on Max 1680x1050.
7900gs
2 Go.
E6400.
On its knees...
Nice graphics.
System Shock, I liked a lot, it was new and fresh.
System Shock 2, I did not appreciate.
TF2 for the world !!!
I ran the Demo on Max 1680x1050.
7900gs
2 Go.
E6400.
On its knees...
Upvote
0
I ran through the demo, it was ok. Looks great (even on my 7900GT), it's not quite as good as everyone is making out but that's probably due to the fact that it's a demo (I am yet to read a negative review).
Combat feels heavy, bulky and needless (this may not be the case as you progress through the game) given that you re-spawn with no penalty upon death there seems little point in it apart from to progress through the game. Almost like "ah well no one would play it if they didn't have their attention kept every few minutes with a foe to fight". It's like the combat in Condemned (melee) meets the combat in HL2 (up close pointless firefights).
It seems silly to draw comparisons with SS2 at this point, the whole aim from design was to make a kind of successor and it's clear from the moment Atlas appears to help via radio.
I found both SS1 and SS2 really awesome, and a lot of the stuff that happens in BioShock (that I've seen so far) is heavily reminiscent of stuff that happens in them.
But still, I'm not expecting great things.
I'll give the full game a go and see where it goes
Combat feels heavy, bulky and needless (this may not be the case as you progress through the game) given that you re-spawn with no penalty upon death there seems little point in it apart from to progress through the game. Almost like "ah well no one would play it if they didn't have their attention kept every few minutes with a foe to fight". It's like the combat in Condemned (melee) meets the combat in HL2 (up close pointless firefights).
It seems silly to draw comparisons with SS2 at this point, the whole aim from design was to make a kind of successor and it's clear from the moment Atlas appears to help via radio.
I found both SS1 and SS2 really awesome, and a lot of the stuff that happens in BioShock (that I've seen so far) is heavily reminiscent of stuff that happens in them.
But still, I'm not expecting great things.
I'll give the full game a go and see where it goes
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There's 87 plasmids; research system; character growth; weapon upgrading; exploring and etc in the full game.
Keep that in mind.
Fighting is still terrible and contrived, and always short range and (mostly) vs some neurotic jumping maniacs. Not 72346 plasmids would change that. Doom 2 stuff, or worse. Very very bad. Guns are complete joke (in demo at least, and I gather from the reviews there aren't much more weapons in the whole game). Sniping? What sniping? Sneaking? What sneaking? It would get in the way of telling The Story my dear Watson.....
It's sad to see so many reviewers succumb to the immense hype. Some of them DO mention that firefights are joke, but still end up giving score of 98 or something like that to this *shooter*? If this game is 98, then FEAR should score 250 - solid story + excellent firefights (when compared to Bioshock)
(Personally I would say score-wise FEAR is around 85-ish, and Bioshock around 72-ish)
Upvote
0
Oleg, have you bought and played through the game? Don't judge it so heavily just on the intro level.
Upvote
0
I'd say playing pipe dream was fun.
Sides that...
meh.
Seen it all before.
Edit: Solid stories?
I can read its solid story online. In terms of story, you can find the plot pretty easily, in which case games about "stories" turn into about the equivalent of a 50 pager (to long to be a short story, to short to be a novel) which is overall mediocre and without the charm that short stories can have.
*WARNING- SPOILERS*
If a game is essentially a movie where the person is holding W, and occasionally has to jump or have a really poor fight scene...well then its not really a game. There is no challenge, only once I came close to being killed, and that was because the game absolutely forces you to play it in a certain way (do this now, do that later) and I was trying to go out of that order. First I tried to hack the security bots in a logical way, when instead it turns out you have to play pipe dream on a dead security bot. Then I tried to kill all the enemies while conserving ammunition, where the game just wanted you to run up to the door and discover that it was blocked. Because I was trying to crowbar them all one at a time, the game decided it would have the bots (who I hacked, and it said were on my side) starting shooting me.
The fights don't leave me entertained. Theyhave horribly obvious tricks (bunch of dudes standing in water, and one zap will kill them all) or just people running around point blank trying to crowbar you. Kind of reminds me of the early parts of half-life it it sucked bad. In the one case where the water trick wasn't horribly in your face, it was nearly impossible to get it to work right because of the the sloppy movement/aiming (might have just been low FPS cause I needed to turn down the graphics/update drivers, but it felt at least somewhat intentional.)
Is it good looking? Yes. However, it fails to be immersive, simply because the view seems really poor. It feels lke this guy has no peripheral vision (someting many shooters have to some extent, but this one seems really bad.)
Also, the thugs are put into the role of poorly thought out stock badguys, which they should not have been caste into. I can understand zombies working together, being insanely aggressive, and appearing like the thugs do, but whenever you cannot directly fight them (cut scenes and such) they are shown as intelligent and self-interested, just amoral. This would make me think that one thug, for example, who saw that they were having their asses kicked, would turn against the other thugs and try and get on your side, or something of that nature. There was at least one case where the thugs showed that they were willing to be violent to each other.
I'd say 72 is about right. Its just not anywhere near the caliber of a 90ish% game, I expect a 90ish% game to have almost no flaws, any flaws to be extremely minor, and be very innovative.
My example would be Alpha Centauri. It was (imo) the undisputed champion of the civs, and after civ 3 and expansions they began going back to it with civ 4 and its expansions.
This game..I've seen it all before. Nothing striking, hell the initial guns imo are some of the wost looking and feeling guns I've seen in a long time.
Sides that...
meh.
Seen it all before.
Edit: Solid stories?
I can read its solid story online. In terms of story, you can find the plot pretty easily, in which case games about "stories" turn into about the equivalent of a 50 pager (to long to be a short story, to short to be a novel) which is overall mediocre and without the charm that short stories can have.
*WARNING- SPOILERS*
If a game is essentially a movie where the person is holding W, and occasionally has to jump or have a really poor fight scene...well then its not really a game. There is no challenge, only once I came close to being killed, and that was because the game absolutely forces you to play it in a certain way (do this now, do that later) and I was trying to go out of that order. First I tried to hack the security bots in a logical way, when instead it turns out you have to play pipe dream on a dead security bot. Then I tried to kill all the enemies while conserving ammunition, where the game just wanted you to run up to the door and discover that it was blocked. Because I was trying to crowbar them all one at a time, the game decided it would have the bots (who I hacked, and it said were on my side) starting shooting me.
The fights don't leave me entertained. Theyhave horribly obvious tricks (bunch of dudes standing in water, and one zap will kill them all) or just people running around point blank trying to crowbar you. Kind of reminds me of the early parts of half-life it it sucked bad. In the one case where the water trick wasn't horribly in your face, it was nearly impossible to get it to work right because of the the sloppy movement/aiming (might have just been low FPS cause I needed to turn down the graphics/update drivers, but it felt at least somewhat intentional.)
Is it good looking? Yes. However, it fails to be immersive, simply because the view seems really poor. It feels lke this guy has no peripheral vision (someting many shooters have to some extent, but this one seems really bad.)
Also, the thugs are put into the role of poorly thought out stock badguys, which they should not have been caste into. I can understand zombies working together, being insanely aggressive, and appearing like the thugs do, but whenever you cannot directly fight them (cut scenes and such) they are shown as intelligent and self-interested, just amoral. This would make me think that one thug, for example, who saw that they were having their asses kicked, would turn against the other thugs and try and get on your side, or something of that nature. There was at least one case where the thugs showed that they were willing to be violent to each other.
I'd say 72 is about right. Its just not anywhere near the caliber of a 90ish% game, I expect a 90ish% game to have almost no flaws, any flaws to be extremely minor, and be very innovative.
My example would be Alpha Centauri. It was (imo) the undisputed champion of the civs, and after civ 3 and expansions they began going back to it with civ 4 and its expansions.
This game..I've seen it all before. Nothing striking, hell the initial guns imo are some of the wost looking and feeling guns I've seen in a long time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Let's put it this way - FEAR had just enough of the story as I was ready to tolerate before going "meh" and feeling bored.
It was just the right amount of single player story-telling for my taste. Plus it had great GREAT firefights (best firefights ever seen in a non-military shooter) - good enough to be released as stand alone MP game. A fine balance IMO.Bioshock has no balance: it's all story, very little or no gameplay. No skill, no competition, no challenge, everything is there just to advance The Story.
Bioshock might have better story overall but that's like saying War and Peace has even better story. Yea but can I play it? I am not going to discover Bioshock story thru "playing" simply because the game sux IMO - I am going to read it on the net where it will be available anyway, in a day or two, spoiling your enjoyment if any n00bz happen to stumble upon it without *spoiler alert*
LOL
Upvote
0