I feel like this game really encompasses all of the problems that modern vidya has

Because, user, some people actually PAY MONEY for a game.

I know it doesn't matter for a pirate or Steamsale nigger but if you actually pay €$60 for a game you don't want it to be 10 hours, you know?

It's still fundamentally flawed. Part of playing a "good" game, as much as Holla Forums (or anyone with good taste) would hate to admit, is storytelling and atmosphere.

Throwing waves of splicers at you, with tons of ammo and little to no cohesive story to make you give a shit, ends up boring. It's the reason nobody picks it up a second time after finishing it: you've seen it all after the credits roll.

I think a lot of "purists" like to argue that gameplay is all that matters, but your brain wants a reason to explore a world. It drags you in that much more to WANT to figure things out and explore shit. It's why litfags enjoy books. You really do need context.

Yes the drill is cool. Yes the gameplay is cool. But if that was the focus, why no arena mode? Why not focus more on the features that flesh out the gameplay? Why slather up a story and spend money and energy shitting up a reason to go through the game?

It just doesn't make sense, until you remember that video games are a business. Which is why I said that this really encompasses what modern vidya has become.

No, I think most of Holla Forums would agree that games are like porn, a story is expected, but that's not why you play it. Lurk moar.

No, games are about gameplay.

This, thinking anything else indicates you started playing after 2006

Quality > quantity

Whats the point of eating a long tainted turd when you can eat a small delicious and memorable steak, some games are long and delicious and that's ok too though.

There was enough story for me to give a shit about, but what I really gave a shit about was murdering dudes as cool as I could. And protecting my sisters.

in the gameplay department Bioshock 2 certainly felt a bit more robust. Although it was all to easy to go for an overpowered path (drill baby drill).

In regards to story? Bioshock is Ghostbusters 2. Same shit as the first game with a few changed names and faces.
Or should I say its more like a remake than a sequel.

The pure fact of the matter is that Bioshock, the world that was presented to you in 1, was all that you ever needed. The idea that the city is somehow still (barely) functioning and that there is some sort of ultra communist at the helm is fucking retarded.
Only because it extends, for no fucking reason other than to make money off a new game, the life-cycle of the Bioshock undersea world.
When you get to it in 1 it is basically falling apart. Everyone down there is as good as dead since the entire fucking thing is just breaking under the pressures of the undersea world.
So what the fuck is the point of 2?

le hivemind

Then why is there no arena mode? Why pretend to have a story in the first place?

Are you honestly telling me games like SS2 and Deus Ex need absolutely no context to succeed in what they do well? The story, atmosphere, all of it come together in both of those games (and more) to create a really memorable and engaging connection with the player.

The exploration of a creatively made setting is the natural evolution for a good game. It's why mario didn't stay a 2D sidescroller with a simple goal of "save le princess".

That the game has you give Lamb a second chance when she's an irredeemable psychopath for the good ending rumbled my fucking jumblies. She deserved no such thing after her actions and it's been a while but I distinctly recall some brainwashing.

They do, but those games have better stories and atmospheres than Bioshock, so it's not that big of a loss for the series.

I'd probably agree with you. While combat improved the game lost that more unique feeling that interested me at first. Trading atmosphere what is still at the end of the day a consolised SS2/Deus Ex just doesn't cut it for me.

Basically it's the same issue Mass Effect 2 has compared to ME1: a poor shooter becomes merely average while sacrificing what made the first game compelling (not the shooting).

I don't think I could come up with a worse example against your case if I tried.

All Bioshock ever had was its story/atmosphere/characters (i.e. writing) and a dumbed-down version of the SS2/DX1 combat system. Slightly improving the latter at the cost of all of the former is not the right way to go about shit.

maybe you should actually try then instead of pretending to be intelligent by omission

but the point is that the story MATTERS. Period.

You're both operating under the assumption that everyone values Bioshock's story and atmosphere as much as you do, when that's not the case.

It became a 3D platformer with the story of "Save le princess".

I get what you're trying to say but I think you're not really understanding when and why a story is important to certain game types.
A platformer, for example, requires very little to no story to help drive a person forward. Provided that the challenge of the platformer itself is adequate.
The story in platformers, and in this case a mario game, has always been akin to the "story" in "Magic The Gathering" cards. Flavor text. That's all it is and that's all it needs to be. Just little tidbits here and there that give you little things about the world but nothing too major or serious in it.
You don't ever need to know the motivations behind Mario to save the princess for you to want to reach the end of the game. You don't need to know the politics of the mushroom kingdom and Bowser's domain or anything like that.

Now in the case of something like Bioshock, the story is an important thing. Not only because of the nature of the gameplay but because of the setting and mindset its trying to push the player into.
Story in a game should work to help immerse you in the game setting and give you a reason to care about the character you're playing and what your'e doing beyond "just playing a game".
See, with mario you're not entirely or truly invested in the character. You're not supposed to be. it is a game through and through and mario is no different than a monopoly game piece. In something like Bioshock though, you need to be able to role-play into that role.

How could you not value it? Are you contrarian or do you see every vidya as some binary tech demo for gameplay only?

I guess yes this is exactly my point. I agree with your post, but what I was trying to say is that mario, and games like it, evolved past the point of flavor text. Context and story are important tools for helping make the gameplay more immersive and ultimately, more memorable.

I won't mention the multiplayer since I'm sure I'm one of the few that did enjoy it, but there was essentially an arena mode
saying that its "casual" because the themes have been simplified isn't really saying much since having a simple story isn't the same as having a bad one
I will say story is probably 2's weakest point, but not by much, the original game had a good story, but it wasn't as "groundbreaking" as alot of people like to jerk off about
and 2 makes so many improvements to gameplay I can comfortably say the good outweighs the bad
this is an easy shot, but still, it was a shit ton better than infinite's garbage story

What the fuck else would you value in Bioshock 1? Nothing else it did was particularly noteworthy.

Exactly.

I didn't say I didn't value it, I said I don't value it as much as you. Is it always all or nothing with you, user? The atmosphere was nice, but not utilized especially well.

How so? I thought the atmosphere, the rhetoric, themes (big daddies, lore behind them, etc.) were all really well explored in the first game. It was dystopian and sci-fi without being some demure cyberpunk circlejerk. How could you not see it utilized well?

I pirated it and this is still bullshit.

Well I can understand simply disliking the game but even then you must surely see a difference between Bioshock and any other generic FPS. That difference is a result of the writing and generally coherent design (all feeding into that atmosphere).

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Infinite is anything but utter shit.

So should I bother with this series? Never played any of the Bioshocks but I finished System Shock a while ago

I disagree.
What mario games have you been playing that have all this grand story?
Shit is and always has been just a bit of flavor text on the gameplay.

Holy shit you nailed it right on the head, dude. Fucking perfect!

I'd play the first game and see if it grabs you. If you enjoy it you'll find some degree of fun in 2 even if it's only as a mindless shooter (personally I'd say there's still enough of the atmosphere there too, inferior though it may be). If you don't like 1 then still try 2 again for the slightly above-par shooting. Obviously pirate both before you even consider paying for them.

Do not bother with Infinite. It's not worth playing even for completeness' sake. Fucking terrible, terrible pretentious pile of shit.

All Bioshock games have garbage gunplay

Or less confusingly:

Play 1 and 2. If you bounce off of 1 because of gameplay reasons (or you're a little bitch with 'horror') then try 2 anyway. Worst case you'll get a few hours of acceptable shooting out of the experience.

I'll enjoy it if there's any characters written to be like any of Ayn Rand's protagonists that I can shoot in the head

Because it was shit.

The first game was shit.
The third game was shittier.
I have no idea about 2.

That game is a LITERAL fanfic
It even had goddamned oc's
That game was so fucking boring, I don't get why Holla Forums likes it so much

...

It's either the shittiest or somewhere in between. You can at least trudge through the first one just to see where it goes. The other ones either aren't engaging enough or fun enough to justify the hassle.

I'm inclined to agree with it a bit because of Lamb's sudden extreme importance and the massive faction within Rapture that even started their own religion based on her psychobabble that absolutely none of which even remotely mentioned as happening in the first game

...

oh boy you're gonna love it

Textbook example of unnecessary sequel. I didn't want to play as big daddy besides the little bit in biococks 1, making the "cherry on top" into a full game fucks up the entire experience. Everything about it was unnecessary. Biococks 1 actually had moments where some playstyles were better than others. B2 was simply the most bland, linear, and forgettable game in terms of everything. You could tell the devs simply didn't give a fuck.

As for the games that encompasses all of the problems that vidya has, look at e-sports shit like Overwatch, and more narrative walking sims like Life is Strange. Life is Strange is a problem in the sense that people simply don't want a game anymore, they want something that makes them "feel" deep. They don't care how they get their fix, as long as "emotional narrative" is on the tin, they want to play along and will do anything to defend that narrative, no pun intended.

As for the problem with Overwatch, it's a textbook example of the "flavor of the month" stage of evolution that the industry is at. People want to pay games where they can do next to jack shit and be able to show off to their friends how excellent their shitty "play of the game" was, whereas classic vidya like Quake actually required some form of skill to pull off a lot of tricks that are needed to play above a retard level. Don't get me started on how it's gonna open up a floodgate of socially exceptable waifushit from here on out.

So? kotor 2 did the same thing with Kreia and changing Revan's reasons for falling, but no one gives Obsidian shit for that.

The debate about story vs gameplay ITT is a little nonsensical to me because I like the gameplay AND the story of Bioshock 2 more than I do the other games in the trilogy.
To me it feels like a genuine golden age science fiction story against a vaguely political backdrop, whereas the first and third games are heavy handed political moralizing set in a halfway thought out scifi setting. They tied a lot of shit together that the first game didn't bother to.
Its just a shame that they had a relatively small budget and had to reuse so many assets from the first game. But all things considered they did great with what they had.
Also I think it's telling that Levine copied many of the main plot points for Infinite, the hack.

There is a set of choices that gets you both the good ending and Lamb dying.

I believe saving all sisters, but killing all the level specific "villains" will give you the "justice" ending, where Eleanor sees the good in the world, but also the need for punishment
unfortunately I think it requires you killing the old niggress who didn't really deserve it, she was just a sad childless women being taken advantage of by Sofia
on that note the one thing that pisses me the fuck off is that killing the abomination that WAS Gil Alexander still counts as the "bad" choice, even though it would be out of mercy, and the man begs you to end whatever living nightmare he's become in recordings

Heinrich, get the gas

No, as long as you save the sisters, you get the good ending. It's not the "bad" choice, it's the "kill him choice." It makes perfect sense to me that killing the various level bosses regardless of their individual circumstances would lead Eleanor to kill Sophia.
The Gil one is particularly interesting to me in that he begs you to kill him in his recordings, and begs you to spare him in person. You can make the mercy argument for either choice.

That's why I said literal, retard.

If I remember right the deal with Gil was he's begging you to kill him in his recordings because it's still him while the failed supergenius experiments made him Alex the Great who definitely doesn't want to die

Either way that fetal abomination in the tank should probably have a mercy-kill

If that were true, Holla Forums wouldn't be so happy to play and discuss Morrowind and STALKER.

I think I accidentally made the ending better.
Get this
Now, if you have a save file, I suggest you do this asw to see what I mean.

Other than that, I enjoyed it. It sure as hell didn't have that novelty of feeling like a rat in a maze like the first game, but it was fun nevertheless.

What? Better gameplay is anti-casual.

Barotrauma is better.

The gameplay is better but the game is easier.

Bioshock 1 sucks and this is why I think that it sucks.
Main Character:
Why is the main character one of those Half-Life style silent protagonists? You hear him talk in the opening scene so why is he suddenly mute? With games like Portal 2, you feel like there isn't anything add to the conversation but Bioshock feel like the main character is a literal mute and everyone else is ignoring his numerous hand gestures.
Twist:
The twist doesn't make sense and it is super pretentious and hypocritical. I have nothing to add to this but an opinion that this wasn't some kind of commentary. Remember this was from the guys that coined the term Ludonarrative dissonance.
The Choice:
Like everyone has said, you going make one choice and stick to it. The game has garner a lot of praise due to this "moral dilemma" except the game does so much to get you pick the good option. Besides the whole moral issue, the game does a poor job incentivizing the evil choice. Adam isn't really that necessary and you have no idea how much Adam you will get from the process. You only know that harvesting gets more Adam than rescuing. You don't even have a vague idea like "You'll only half the Adam.". Also, the first person that you meet that wasn't trying to kill you tells you not to do the evil thing, gives you a non-evil alternative, and killed the last person who tried to do that evil thing. There is also the whole bias to the status quo. People should stop patting themselves in the back for not killing fictional little girls.
Gameplay:
What I hate about the game the most is how obsessed it is in controlling the player's experience. You can't horde anything. There is tons of ammo lying around but your character will only pick up a hand full. This is to make sure bad players can always find ammo and good players won't be rewarded for being stingy with ammo. This also applies to money which has a rather small wallet cap for a game about Objectivism. There is also the quest markers, vita-chambers, lack of a "Shut the fuck up, Atlas!" button, and how the game "teaches" you how to use fire and electric magic. Seriously if you need to be taught using electricity on enemies standing on water hurts them, then you probably shouldn't be playing video games.

And all those are reasons why the game is considered a GOAT : because the majority are casuals and will be blown away by this.
Imagine how it would be like if it was akin to SS2, but with steam punk. Level design tells the story. You can pick up a plasmid that like breaks down shit into it's base components and then with another one reconstruct it. And if you get the reconstruction one near the end game, you can go back some distance to use it on impassible terrain.
I recently replayed the first SS. The looty booty horror shooty stuff is still there, but the limited inventory and just obscene amounts of damage you take countered by health packs every 10 feet show how not well thought out this game is.
I could go on, but then I'd just make myself sad.

Bioshock never had good gameplay. The only reason to slog thru it was for the story which was kind of neat until you realized Levine is a stupid kike. Still, the first one had that magical feeling that makes you want to go forward in the beginning.

Second one added a DRILL! Wow. More explosions. And it ruined everything else. If I wanted to play a shock game for the gameplay, I'd play SS1. If I wanted to play it for the story and level design, I'd play SS2. If I wanted to try a modern remake, I'd try Bioshock and then throw it into a dumpster. If I wanted to play Bioshock 2, I wouldn't because gameplay is still boring and unsatisfying, enemies annoying more than anything else and the story is shit that ruins the setting.

Not all /v.

I actually like story and characters in videogames, that's why I finish them and not just drop them after a few hours.

Oh and we get a shitton of threads on horror games here on /v and don't forget all the lore threads.

Been gaming since 1998 idiot.

True but I would never pay full price for a short game. Pic related, I actually teared up playing it. But I got free on PSN.

I never played SS and I still hated BS1.
BS1 obviously wanted to give a horror feel and wanted you explore around. However, the game punishes that by having respawning enemies and giving no alternative but continuous murder. There is no reward to savaging for ammo because you can only carry a hand full.

Did we play the same game; because while the setup and the setting (not level design) was good, the story and how it was told were terrible.

That's exactly what I said. The setup motivates you to go forward before all goes to shit because Levine is a hack who doesn't know what he's going.

2 doesn't even even try. You're the emotionless abomination because they're cool except you have emotions and a waifu and are a human with a helmet. No fuck off, this is stupid fanfic tier. Then it sends you in the place made of the same old Rapture assets from the last game.

No, it doesn't. What I meant about the setup is the idea of what made Rapture. Everything involving the main character and his struggles was a mess from the beginning.

"Pretentious"

Bioshock story is a lot more fun if you're familiar with history and Rand's insane philosophy. Levine is Canadian iirc and it shows.

He was born in NY user, he is jewish and an atheist though.

I was talking about "Would you kindly" bullshit.

Bioshock 2 is an example of taking good ideas from a game that squandered them (Bioshock) and turning them into fun, meaningful mechanics with a complete and interesting weapons arsenal and even taking the halfbaked over-reliant on "moments" story of the original and turning it into something consistently interesting.

Bioshock 1 was plagued with mediocre level design in areas that were often all too similar to one another and could simply be described as hallways connected to cube rooms connected to stairways connected to hallways. Never did it branch from some very tired level design. The AI and enemy behavior never made itself out to be anything interesting, the best it got was big daddies who were at best side strafing, spamming tanks. Never anything elaborate once you do your damage dump into them.

Bioshock 2 turned everything from the original that was terrible (and there was a lot of it) in to something good, interesting, challenging, and requiring you to engage in the now interesting mechanics, make use of the good weapons, cut away the fat and make something good with what's left.

The arsenal deserves praise for avoiding the traps the original did, gone is the mediocre ensemble of standard first person shooter set, and in comes the bombastic drill, the meaty double barreled shotgun, the rivet gun and all the unique ammo types that helped differentiate each weapon just a little bit more.

The level design is full of interesting locales such as themeparks to the ocean floor which give the game a chance to show off rapture as more than just hallways and cubed out rooms. Some much needed fresh air there.

The story in the original people seem to forget is nothing without those little special moments. The Ryan speech, the would you kindly, the Cohen gallery, without those moments? It loses a lot of its edge. Between all of this its padded, boring, and nothing very peculiar or interesting really happens between those peaks in the story. It never managed to be consistent. The sequel once again fixes this, engaging the player in sporadic big sister fights, trailing them along with harvesting defense situations, it all worked very well.

Most people shat on the game for not having those big, bombastic speeches, but forgot those little special moments, like when you're working your way through the entertainment district to kill that hasbeen, only to have that chance to spare her. After you learn her story, it becomes a legitimate moral choice for the player. Do you take your revenge for all the shit she put you through, or understand her plight and realize she may make a better ally in the end? Things like this show the teams determination to unfuck all the failures of the original.

It's a little sad to see OP who can't piece these things together. Bioshock 2 is a more subtle game than the first, it's much less flamboyant, much less bombastic and in your face, but it's far more rewarding, better designed, better paced, and a better game ultimately. It didn't have a pretentious and deep story, because it didn't need it. It had a functional story that played with the game mechanics and designs decently, and it was more rewarding and fun as a focus. It's frankly the only game worth giving a damn about in the entire Bioshock franchise.

Holla Forums likes stalker because it's a unique game and unfortunately, the best of its kind. In reality, with any scrutiny it's a sloppy piece of shit with mediocre design, terrible game play mechanics, ineffective faction system, AI that shits itself randomly, and is filled with numerous half-finished feeling levels.

Morrowind is a boring ass RPG with terrible combat, but that's another discussion.

im not sure what youre saying. maybe the plot is a bit odd but youd probably enjoy it if you were interested in the setting. and the gameplay felt much cleaner compared to the first game.
isnt this the opposite of the problems in the modern vidya? you enjoy it if youre in to it, you dont if you arent instead of trying to appeal to everyone

yeah, frankly bioshock 2 is the antithesis to modern vidya. Great single player with excellent game play mechanics. Story isn't in your face and retarded, and it's just a well designed, enjoyable game.

I don't know about Bioshock 2 but BS1 felt like the representation of what is wrong with modern vidya.

Probably. Journalists wouldn't shut the fuck up about Bioshock 1. They praised it and ignored any flaws. So everyone else said "hey lets make a game like this!" Meanwhile Irrational games, ignorant of any criticism just exacerbated the problems with the first game, saw the backlash bioshock 2 got after the developers finished that one up, neglected all the improvements, and churned out a far worse game than the first bioshock. Bioshock 1 really did have some good ideas in it.

I think it lead to the rise of Journalist and casual tailored games like Uncharted.
One sitting game that plays like every other game.

I'm pretty sure most of Holla Forums would agree that different genres and types of games should have focus put into different areas, with some games needing some sort of plot or character-driven motivation less than others.

One thing I can say in regards to gameplay is that it's the most important element of any game, regardless of all other factors.