Take Two Disappointed With BioShock 2

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Take Two Disappointed With BioShock 2

image

Game making can be a risky business, and sometimes you can be a victim of your own success.

BioShock was about as complete as a game could be. It was innovative, had fun gameplay and told a compelling and complete story. The sequel, however, received a much more lukewarm reception when it was released back in February.

Take Two boss Brian Feder believes that the familiarity with the setting afforded by the first game meant that much of the sense of wonder was lost, which in turn hurt sales: "The surprise factor is always going to be there," he said. "Sometimes they work for you and sometimes they work against you. Our goal is to have them work for us, more often than not."

Feder said that the BioShock series has plenty more life in it, calling the franchise "viable", but said that while BioShock 2 had done reasonably well, it had not been a stunning success: "BioShock 2 is profitable for the company," he said. "It was ultimately successful, but not hugely successful."

If/when a BioShock 3 does come, it will be interesting to see where the game goes. Will it risk another trip to Rapture, or will it abandon the sea for some new location? It's hard to imagine a BioShock without an undersea setting, but that might be just what is needed to make the game a success.

Source: Venture Beat via VG247

Permalink

Bioshock is one of my favorite games of all time. The second was mediocre in every sense of the word. They never should have made it a franchise in the first place, and I really hope they let it die. Why bother forcing out another sequel? Especially if it leaves Rapture.

It was a success. The game faired well, just because you filled one giant money pit instead of two doesn't mean you should be disappointed.

I'm sure there are many companies who would kill for a "disappointed" like this.

EDIT: And another thing, Bioshock doesn't seem like a "franchise" to me. The first one was its own little world, and wrapped up nicely without leaving any real room for sequels.

Not every game needs a sequel. Not every game needs to be turned into a franchise. Not every game needs multiplayer.

I believe what this franchise needs is a departure from its current setting, location and main gameplay elements to make it a stunning success again - effectively rendering 'Bioshock' useless as a franchise for future installments. Just give us a new Shock, Feder... it doesn't have to be a Bio just because the last one was good.

Funny, I think many players were disappointed in Bioshock 2 as well.

Some games aren't meant to be a franchise.

If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I loved both both Games.
I thought BioShock 1 was better Story wise.
And BioShock 2 was better Gameplay wise.

Id love to see a different setting, the whole idea Genetic Reconfiguration is still interesting and fresh, but a different setting where you can get new ideas for Plasmids would be a good idea.

Can anyone say Secret lab high in the Mountains?

Jelekk:
Bioshock is one of my favorite games of all time. The second was mediocre in every sense of the word. They never should have made it a franchise in the first place, and I really hope they let it die. Why bother forcing out another sequel? Especially if it leaves Rapture.

I still want a prequel, one that shows Rapture before it's fall. During that game we could see it slowly descend into madness, more and more rioting and fighting, more people (because it'd be nice to see the city alive, with people going about their business) splicing themselves up too far, you name it.

It would also be nice to have the more open-world feeling of the first BioShock return, only with more purpose. In the first game you could return to previous areas, but there was little reason to do so. In the prequel you'd get new missions as time (and the rise of Atlas and at one point the civil war) progresses.

I've got the whole thing worked out in my mind, it could be fantastic and not just a copy of the first BioShock, something we must very much avoid. BioShock 2 showed why that wasn't a good idea; the "wow" factor of Rapture was pretty much gone.

Also, I must add that BioShock 2 was very obviously based on different Ayn Rand novel, namely The Fountainhead. Sofia Lamb was 100% Ellsworth Toohey. That's why I enjoyed BioShock 2. Sure the "wow" factor was gone, but seeing that book come back in BioShock 2 was pretty cool. The upgraded combat (dual-wielding weapons and plasmids) made it a lot more fun too.

While I enjoyed Bioshock 2 very much, it was not the location being familiar that made the game weaker than it's predecessor. A lack of imagination in anything beyond combat and a story that just went bizarre near the end would be the main factors.

My favourite parts were the very beginning and the very end, around about 2/3rds of the way in they lost track, just like with Bioshock. The difference is that they didn't have an amazing twist or revelation just before it to make fans less critical.

Gigaguy64:
I loved both both Games.
I thought BioShock 1 was better Story wise.
And BioShock 2 was better Gameplay wise.

Basically yes. Although the issue is that fans of Bioshock were almost unanimously because of the story and atmosphere as opposed to game-play and so they really should have dug deep to have a story as good as the firsts.

Take two aren't the only ones dissapointed with bioshock 2. the first game was a masterpiece, the only game to ever leave me in absolute hand-on-mouth (bio)shock.

why can't they just leave that wonderful game to stand proud in gaming history without people in the future having to remember it along with its mediocre sequel(s).

Cowabungaa:
Also, I must add that BioShock 2 was very obviously based on different Ayn Rand novel, namely The Fountainhead. Sofia Lamb was 100% Ellsworth Toohey. That's why I enjoyed BioShock 2.

See, that was another problem I had with the game. First game was all about how and why ayn rand was a dipshit. Then the second game honors her philosophy? Please.

Bioshock 2 was clearly made by people who had close to zero understanding of what made the first game amazing. Mindless executives regurgitating barely understood market data to hundreds of codemonkeys who had no real say in any matter.

You can almost see the original developers refusing to make a sequel, and some brainless executive going "OH YEA? WELL WE DON'T NEED U!" to the facepalms of all within earshot.

Bioshock in a desert, I want it now.

Some devoid-of-life place where someone is trying to build a self-contained society, similar in premise to Rapture, it doesn't need water to be Bioshock, it needs to be well-written and have talented voice actors/actresses.

What would it's point be? To improve the gameplay.
When the most effective forms of attack in your game are wrench and rocket launcher, you need to fix some things.

Heres an idea...how about they just make a new IP and call it...DesertShock? Or...MountainousregionShock? See? I've already got some names for them.

Seriously though, Bioshock didn't need a sequel, wasn't set up for a sequel, and didn't need to be turned into a franchise. If they slapped a "From the creators of BioShock" on whatever the next game would've been from them of that quality, it would've sold just fine.

I'm one of the noted few who didn't like either, and I don't really know why.

Actually...I know exactly why...and it's got nothing to do with the game, more the setting.

Underwater....brrrr.....

But even dealing with the clasping at my throat when the whale went past, it felt like I was walking through an art gallery. And everytime you interacted with one of the fantastic pieces of art, there was a mental 'disconnect' as you jumped back into FPS mode and then a reconnect to the "Story" mode; and that mental flickering between the two was too much to hold onto.

In the end, you just worked out the fastest route and ran past all the paintings...

I can see why it was "GotY", but I really didn't like it at all.

Also, adding MP(PvP) to SP(PvE), or vice versa usually breaks both. There's been only a handful of games ever that can do both well.

Gigaguy64:
I loved both both Games.
I thought BioShock 1 was better Story wise.
And BioShock 2 was better Gameplay wise.

Got to agree with you, I think. I liked BS2, but it wasn't BS1.

BioShock 2 would have been better if it had stayed with the BS1 devs, IMHO. Whilst BS2 was a good game, I expected too much from it and I think that played against it for a lot of people. You expected a new WYK moment, you wanted to learn so much more about Rapture, but it never really happened.

Whilst adding MP was a good idea (and they used another company to do so), I felt it was a bit tacked on, but I suppose it did make the asking price a bit less painful. It was £30 (PC)/£40 (Consoles) for a 6-7hr game, maybe a bit longer if you took your time, explored every nook & cranny and found all audio files. Surely they could have squeezed a few more hours out of it?

But Eleanor Lamb? Mrawr :3

Woodsey:
If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I'm ambivalent about it. I think large late design changes were made to Bioshock in the last year of development, again because of stupid console-tards, developers need to dumb down to meet that market. Take-Two decided it should be a 'shooter with RPG elements' like Unreal under the sea instead of a 'first-person RPG' like Deus Ex. It basically should have been more like Arkham Asylum(a game that got compared with Bioshock funny enough) and an idiot would say "Batman:AA is a fighting game" just because most of the controls are for fighting, Batman fights most of the characters he encounters and the fighting is rather good. But Batman isn't a fighting game like Devil May Cry is. Re-spawning enemies are a testament to just how ill-conceived Bioshock's finished combat design is.

Bioshock had virtually no character interaction except fighting and the fighting wasn't good because it doesn't appear to have been worked on for very long unlike Bioshock 2. I believe combat early on was somewhat more puzzle based and going back to Batman: fighting in that game is essentially a form of Tetris where you're prioritising and reacting to fists and skulls rather than blocks. In early videos combat was represented as using a gun to get flaming gas pouring from a pipe, using telekinesis to set an object on fire over the pipe and then throwing the object. In practice, this is almost ineffective in the game; it's been badly balanced so that all-out shooting is far more effective.

Bioshock 2 basically is what they intended to make Bioshock at a late stage but stumbled on getting it right. It got me thinking that if Batman came out when Bioshock did and Bioshock came out when Batman did, they would have been a lot more confident making it into the game it was supposed to be.

Rapture is in the same league as Silent Hill, in that it should be treated as a character, not a location. It grows, it can change. Rapture is what needed to be expanded on, not the lore of their own Mr Scary, the Big Daddies. What BioShock 2 failed to do was expand on Rapture itself, instead expanding the mythos and hence ruining what was so fascinating about the first game. Rapture was what horrified me, not the Splicers, not the Little Sisters, Rapture. Similarly, it was Silent Hill that made me crap myself, not Pyramid Head or the glistening products of James' sexually frustrated mind.

Of course, BioShock 2 did need some form of plot to flow with, the only downfall of said plot was that it was too damn focused on explaing Rapture's inner workings. I've said it once, and I'll say it again, look at The Matrix: Reloaded. The problem with sequels and prequels alike is that they have bizarre tendancies, making them feel obligated to have to explain EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DETAIL. Was I the only one slightly pissed off at the Architect's ramblings, explaining everything, yet making no sense whatsoever? I somehow doubt it. Another example? Star Wars: Episode I: The Phatom Menace.

I have one thing to say about that movie.

What the fuck are midichlorians, and why do we give a shit? There's something called suspension of disbelief that most of us are capable of using.

This of course, is just my opinion.

So, um... was anyone not disappointed with Bioshock 2?

Why did we even need a Bioshock 2? The first one rounded up things pretty well if you ask me. Making a third one is just pushing it.

I found Bioshock 2 to be satisfactory in comparison to the original. Gameplay was fun, but story was lacking. I just didn't feel the same way as I did with the first.

Cynical skeptic:
See, that was another problem I had with the game. First game was all about how and why ayn rand was a dipshit. Then the second game honors her philosophy? Please.

Bioshock 2 was clearly made by people who had close to zero understanding of what made the first game amazing. Mindless executives regurgitating barely understood market data to hundreds of codemonkeys who had no real say in any matter.

You can almost see the original developers refusing to make a sequel, and some brainless executive going "OH YEA? WELL WE DON'T NEED U!" to the facepalms of all within earshot.

I wouldn't say so, BioShock 2 just takes the other extreme presented in Ryan's work which is obviously just as awful. It doesn't glorify Ryan's love for the ego either, as it's all about a mindless slave redeeming himself through love and compassion, if you get the good ending at least. I never noticed Ryan preaching compassion.

But I do agree that it seems that they weren't very aware of that, but the only way to be sure is to ask the developers.

What would be really cool is if they made Bioshock 3 take place in the future, this time with a new Rapture built somewhere even more extreme--like in space! And in addition to bio-organic technology there would be cybernetics, and there could be mutants, and evil robots, and a rogue AI or something, with some RPG elements and weapon upgrades and everything. Man, a game like that would be rad.

Arec Balrin:

Woodsey:
If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I'm ambivalent about it. I think large late design changes were made to Bioshock in the last year of development, again because of stupid console-tards, developers need to dumb down to meet that market.

You're gonna get chucked off of here pretty quickly if you come out with shit like that.

Woodsey:
If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

My take on it was that while Bioshock was the better experience, Bioshock 2 was the better game. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run Bioshock 2 ended up more fondly remembered than the first (though I seriously doubt it).

The thing is that bioshock 2 was a) completely unnecessary, and b) less memorable.

Otherwise it played better, it was better paced (seriously though, the first game dragged like hell), it was more consistent in its quality, had a way more satisfying conclusion, and the plot was more mature (though no less silly, and admittedly with worse characters and overall less memorable).

I can understand why people say the game shouldn't exist, but I really don't see why people were disappointed by it.

I never played it. I though the game would take place on an island. If you beat the PS3 version of number one then you see the video. I'm sure its on youtube now.

StarStruckStrumpets:

What the fuck are midichlorians, and why do we give a shit? There's something called suspension of disbelief that most of us are capable of using.

Uh, it's always the midichlorians with you people.

They were there to show just how powerful Anakin was and his force potential, because if you'll notice he never actually fulfills that potential once he gets cooked alive at gas mark 4.

They're also there because they explain his "lack" of a father (who is strongly implied to be Darth Plageuis) in Ep. 3.

They're not there to explain the force they're just a way of showing Anakin's potential power, because you're never gonna see him actually reach it.

Xocrates:

Woodsey:
If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

My take on it was that while Bioshock was the better experience, Bioshock 2 was the better game. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run Bioshock 2 ended up more fondly remembered than the first (though I seriously doubt it).

The thing is that bioshock 2 was a) completely unnecessary, and b) less memorable.

Otherwise it played better, it was better paced (seriously though, the first game dragged like hell), it was more consistent in its quality, had a way more satisfying conclusion, and the plot was more mature (though no less silly, and admittedly with worse characters and overall less memorable).

I can understand why people say the game shouldn't exist, but I really don't see why people were disappointed by it.

I could kiss you for that comment - no one ever mentions the bloody awful pacing of the first. NEVER!

Bioshock 2's story was really it's only weak point, at least in my mind. Though my mind has blotted out the multiplayer, damn that was awful. Gameplay wise it was excellent, especially with the ability to use plasmids with your guns, rather than having to switch. Hell, I enjoyed the Little Sister escort missions, which is unusual given my distaste for escorts of any type.

Woodsey:

Arec Balrin:

Woodsey:
If I was new to the internet I might dare ask, "am I the only who thought Bioshock 2 was better than 1?".

I'm ambivalent about it. I think large late design changes were made to Bioshock in the last year of development, again because of stupid console-tards, developers need to dumb down to meet that market.

You're gonna get chucked off of here pretty quickly if you come out with shit like that.

Just hit the report and ignore it like everyone else seems to, hopefully the mods will remove him.

Cowabungaa:
I wouldn't say so, BioShock 2 just takes the other extreme presented in Ryan's work which is obviously just as awful. It doesn't glorify Ryan's love for the ego either, as it's all about a mindless slave redeeming himself through love and compassion, if you get the good ending at least. I never noticed Ryan preaching compassion.

But I do agree that it seems that they weren't very aware of that, but the only way to be sure is to ask the developers.

Conversely, its easy to argue the core philosophy behind bioshock2 was something along the lines of the new world order wanting people to exist only as livestock who's only value being what s/he accomplishes within the narrow constraints of what society dictates as acceptable. Then a relic of older times determines his own criteria for existence. Which is a nice flowery cliffnote version of how ayn rand's philosophy came into existence.

And thats really as far as one can go into bioshock2 before it starts dividing by zero, as the writers really didn't have much clue of what the first game or they were saying.

Woodsey:
I could kiss you for that comment - no one ever mentions the bloody awful pacing of the first. NEVER!

I never had a problem with the pacing of bioshock. It felt more like it was going for realism, while bioshock 2 wanted to be an arcade rail shooter.

Bioshock 3 takes place...IN A SKY CITY! Built by Ryan Andrew!

I liked the hacking system, how you could have the plasmid/weapon out at the same time, and the research system more it 2, but the game crashed literally about 30 times while playing the entire campaign. That was a bit distracting from how good/bad the game was...

Well, it could do a Zelda, for all we know. Same gameplay and shit, but in newer locations with newer stories in different time periods assuming the role of different characters. We got the chance to play as a normal dude in the first one, and we got the chance to play as a Big Daddy (albeit a more advanced Big Daddy), so who knows what they'll pull on us for the third game.

Maybe letting us play as a Splicer? Or a prequel to the first game when Rapture was in its prime, until that fateful day when it all went to shit? Or maybe an entirely different Rapture altogether? We'll wait and see. I thought Bioshock 2 was what it was supposed to be, an upgrade in terms of gameplay, but in terms of plot, well, it is pretty fucking hard to come up with something that can rival the original Bioshock in terms of story.

Cynical skeptic:
Conversely, its easy to argue the core philosophy behind bioshock2 was something along the lines of the new world order wanting people to exist only as livestock who's only value being what s/he accomplishes within the narrow constraints of what society dictates as acceptable. Then a relic of older times determines his own criteria for existence. Which is a nice flowery cliffnote version of how ayn rand's philosophy came into existence.

And thats really as far as one can go into bioshock2 before it starts dividing by zero, as the writers really didn't have much clue of what the first game or they were saying.

BioShock's 2 story is easily explainable by reading The Fountainhead, which is basically Rand's rant (see what I did there?) against collectivist philosophies. BioShock 2 is a grotesque version of that. However, it does not incorporate Rand's usual glorification of the ego, which is also present in The Fountainhead.

Onyx Oblivion:
Bioshock 3 takes place...IN A SKY CITY! Built by Ryan Andrew!

Why is no one thinking of a prequel?! Don't you guys want to see Rapture before the fall? The vast majority of Rapture's history is not used in both games, I think that's a shame.

StarStruckStrumpets:
Rapture is in the same league as Silent Hill, in that it should be treated as a character, not a location. It grows, it can change. Rapture is what needed to be expanded on, not the lore of their own Mr Scary, the Big Daddies. What BioShock 2 failed to do was expand on Rapture itself, instead expanding the mythos and hence ruining what was so fascinating about the first game. Rapture was what horrified me, not the Splicers, not the Little Sisters, Rapture. Similarly, it was Silent Hill that made me crap myself, not Pyramid Head or the glistening products of James' sexually frustrated mind.

I agree 100%, and that's exactly why I want to see the kind of prequel I described earlier: to see the city in it's full glory, only to see it descend into madness and perversion during the game, to see Rapture's ideals twist and destroy it's inhabitants.

if it leaves rapture it shouldn't even be called bioshock

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here