Slashdot Mirror


BioShock Review

BioShock, the moody drama-driven FPS for the Xbox 360 and PC, was released last month to rave reviews from the major gaming news sites. Since then the internet has been ablaze with outcry about the game's high rating scores. It's hard to understand why. The work of Ken Levine and Irrational Games on the spiritual successor to System Shock 2 is sublime. It's incredibly atmospheric, the game's story is well written and compellingly told, and the first-person shooter gameplay is a respectable, tightly crafted experience. It's a really, really good game. I'll tell you now: it's a 5/5. So why all the angst? Why the backlash? Read on for my review of BioShock, and a few comments on the dangers of 'merely' being a good game.
  • Title: BioShock
  • Developer/Publisher: Irrational Games (2K Boston/2K Australia) / 2K
  • System:360 (PC)
  • Genre: RPG/ FPS Hybrid
  • Score: 5/5 - This game is a classic title. It transcends genre, is certain to be a part of many serious gamers' collections, and is definitely worth purchasing.
If you've been reading game sites at all in the last six months, you likely already know the gist of BioShock's unique twist on the old 'trapped in a scary place' storyline. As an unnamed protagonist you descend into the undersea realm of Andrew Ryan, a proponent of a belief system quite similar to Ayn Rand's objectivism with the serial numbers filed off. Proposing that man create his own future with the 'sweat of his brow', Ryan funds the construction of the undersea city of Rapture. Of course, things go horribly wrong. A genetics-altering substance called ADAM twists Rapture and her citizens into a madman's vision of perfection. The city's architecture and music are frozen in time by the deterioration of Ryan's society, and the result is one of the most cohesive, frightening settings I've experienced in a game. As the victim of a plane crash in the middle of the ocean, you have no choice but to brave the terrors of Rapture in hopes of - somehow - making it back to civilization.

The setting is gripping, but it's also the least of the player's worries. It can frighten, but the remaining citizens of Rapture - they can kill. And they'll kill cheerfully, too, all the while singing songs and muttering enthusiastically to themselves. These people are lumped together under the generic term 'Splicer', implying their extreme genetic modification. From low-powered thugs in masks through to fire-tossing, teleporting madmen, their strength when wielding a pipe is far outweighed by the impact they can leave on your nerves. Far more threatening than this group of variously-powered miscreants are the iconic monsters of the title: the Big Daddies. Acting as patrons for their ADAM-hording Little Sister companions, these creatures are just as tough as you've been lead to believe. While much of a given level involves stalking from room to room dealing with the slicer infestation, the most memorable moments you'll have probably come from one-on-one combat with the diving-suit clad behemoths. And they are completely memorable. Even taken out of context the Big Daddy is one of the creepiest enemies ever to grace a videogame. Everything, from their low groans, to their thudding footsteps, to their cries of rage when they attack, gets across to you that when you face down a Daddy it's 'for real.' Game on. I particularly like how, as they become more and more damaged, steam escapes the Daddy's suit. The implication seems to be that there's something deeply wrong under that helmet.

You're driven through the narrative by the whims of your mostly-unseen benefactor Atlas, who plays the part of the down-to-earth everyman paired with Ryan's soulless venture capitalist. He provides a great deal of information about Rapture's background ... but hints all throughout the game indicate Atlas may be more than he appears. The subtext of 'shades of grey' is laid on throughout the game. Though Ryan is clearly a madman you're given hints of his original intentions, which seem quite benign. Likewise (as has been highly publicized), the ghoulish Little Sisters can be either slain or saved as you desire. Nothing is as it initially appears in Rapture. This moral ambiguity never seems forced, but probably isn't everything the BioShock team hoped it could be. It's very enjoyable to have options, but you're not even making as dramatic a choice as the good and evil options in Knights of the Old Republic. Whether you're a sinner or a saint, you're going to end up at roughly the same place in the end. The great writing and characterization throughout the game stands up much better than any moral overtones.

That's extremely similar to System Shock 2, of course. In keeping with the spirit of that game, your ability to customize your avatar is expansive. There are actually four tracks of powerups to choose from: plasmids, physical tonics, engineering tonics, and combat tonics. While it might sound like you will be engineering a carefully constructed 'build', I found during the course of play that a particular style just emerged based on what I found most useful. Engineering tonics were the upgrades that most appealed to me, and so I made an effort to gain slots in that area. There are far more tonics than slots available, so even as you bump up your character's potential you'll never find yourself wanting for powers. Making use of these powers in the 'emergent gameplay' style is also equally effortless. While it sounds like work from the outside, when you're playing through the game encounters happen so quickly that you rarely have time to realize that you're doing cool stuff before it happens. That was another reason I particularly enjoyed engineering; emergent gameplay can even happen when you're not around. I regularly returned to an encampment I'd made out of hacked turrets to find that they'd been clearing the stage without me. All I had to do at that point was loot the corpses.

From a graphical and audio perspective, BioShock is a work of art. Rendered by the Xbox 360, the world of Rapture is awe-inspiring to behold. Everything looks so good, it's hard to point out any one thing in specific that stands above the rest. After playing the game, the best thing to do is try to pull out moments that stick with you: water as it slides over bare rock, the endless wood paneling of nicer spaces, disturbing altars lit only by an open flame, the obvious fury of a Big Daddy wreathed in flames. The sound design is the same way, with a combination of eerie vocal performances blending into a background of music that could really have come from the 40s. Every movement, every gesture in BioShock has an associated sound. From the 'clunk' of entering the hacking menu to the squeal of radio static when activating the Security Bullseye Plasmid, the sound experience in BioShock is equal to the task of rendering a world from the rich images on the screen.

All of these elements probably seem very familiar to veteran gamers, and they very well should. You've probably played a handful of games that had many elements similar to BioShock before. What sets this game apart and above other offerings, though, is the way the title brings it all together. There's almost nothing out of place here. There's no "but the story could have been better" or "the weapons didn't feel right", or "the enemies got boring" to mar the experience of playing this through for the first time. Is it the best game that will be released this year? Possibly. It's certainly the best FPS to be released since Valve's Episode One hit last year.

So where has all the hate come from? Why are there so many posts and protestations on message boards, all claiming that BioShock 'isn't all it was promised to be'? Even Zero Punctuation's analysis of the game (which you should really seriously check out because it's hilarious) takes some cheap shots at the game's purported low difficulty level. It's all for laughs, of course, but it shows up in the review because it's a common complaint among players. The issue is that the restoration capsules scattered throughout the game, which allow you to respawn right after your death, apparently remove the 'challenge' from the game. Others have said in response, "just don't play it that way, that's why there is a quicksave option." That also seems like a strange argument, because it's essentially telling someone they're 'playing wrong'. I don't really think anyone can play a game incorrectly.

Instead, look at it from the designer's point of view. What happens when you die in an FPS, normally? You reload from your last save. Why bother? Why not just respawn and get right back into the fight, ala the spirit world of Prey? Commenters then complain that it's easy because injured enemies on the level still have reduced health. By the same token, any resources you have expended in the fight up to that point (medkits, ammunition) are also still gone. To my mind, the vita-chambers are only there to make your play experience as seamless as possible, not to make it 'easy'. Ultimately, BioShock can be as hard as you want it to be. The variable difficulty rating along with several save options and the vita-chambers means that you can play through the game in a multitude of ways, with several 'steps' between simply easy, medium, and hard. BioShock is not a brief game, either, clocking in probably around 20-25 hours for most players. Anything that ensures you will move through the game as quickly as possible would (I think) be appreciated.

The real problem, I think, is that hype has made game players disappointed with games as they're actually delivered. When a game is unexpectedly good, we all marvel over the 'sleeper hit.' There comes a point in a game's marketing, though, when more hype is just too much. The result is that when the game is finally delivered, there's almost no way for the real product to match up with player expectations. After Halo 3 launches later this month, odds are there will be a lot of people in forums nitpicking the slightest flaw or perceived imperfection. The lesson, I think, is that as gamers we need to learn to manage our expectations. I'm really looking forward to Mass Effect, for example, but I don't think it's going to change my life. Really, what can we expect out of a game other than a few hours of enjoyment we might not otherwise have had? Just getting that much out of a game, I think, is a big win for the publisher, the developer, and (of course) the player.

12 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Why no mention? by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why no mention of the copy protection or the limited number of times it can be installed?

    1. Re:Why no mention? by Duffy13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably because it has no bearing on the quality of the actual gameplay. If it's a factor in whether or not you enjoy the actual game, that's what I like to call "a you problem".

      --
      "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
    2. Re:Why no mention? by Splab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the game is as good as CS for instance 25 installs is nothing. I have been installing that game on and off for 8 years now.

      Why does a game need to limit the amount of installs I can do?

    3. Re:Why no mention? by sehlat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do I put this delicately? Being treated as a "guest in Bubba's palace" by the invasive DRM is NOT a "you problem" if it spoils the gameplay. It's just as much a part of the game as the action, and a major reason why over the years, I've gone to games less and less for entertainment and fun.

    4. Re:Why no mention? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's a factor in whether or not you enjoy the actual game, that's what I like to call "a you problem".

      A review should cover the entire experience, and that includes the DRM. To make up a tortured example, if a movie's distributor is so terrified of people making copies that theaters have to agree to strip search everyone who sees the movie, yeah, that should be noted in any good review in addition to the quality of the film itself. Or to be less contrived, it's fair game for a theater review to note that, say, the theater is in a very dangerous neighborhood, or that you'll end up spending as much on parking or cab fare as on the tickets themselves. Similarly, if a game's installer fails on a large number of systems, rendering the game effectively unplayable, that should be mentioned in a review as well. The publishers included the DRM in the box and as part of the game, so it should get reviewed along with the game.

    5. Re:Why no mention? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A review should cover the entire experience

      A review is a subjective thing that covers the REVIEWER'S experience. In this case, he played it on the XBox 360, where there are no DRM issues. And if he had installed it on a PC, and did not have any installation or DRM issues, then how can that factor in his experience with the game, either?

    6. Re:Why no mention? by Mascot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better question would be, why are you re-installing so often? No.. I really do think the question is why I should ever have to worry about a product I bought suddenly deciding I cannot install it. For any reason other than a technical one.

      Accepting this type of digital restrictions on anything is a bad idea.

      In Bioshock's case I unfortunately did not learn of it until unlock day. It just didn't occur to me that a Steam title would have anything like that. Had I picked up on it earlier I would've voted with my cash and canceled my preorder. I don't buy protected titles as a rule. And vice versa, I buy some unprotected titles just to show support.

      Thankfully, there's always a crack. But I'm really fed up with the pirates consistently getting the better product than the legit customers.
    7. Re:Why no mention? by Schmendr1ck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Game publishers that are in touch with reality understand that every type of copy protection can (and will) be cracked. Some will crack for the fun of it, some because they hate DRM, and some for profit motives - to sell bootlegs.

      There is always someone out there with the skill and determination to crack a game. The goal of a reasonable publisher is not to prevent but to DELAY the crack. The theory is that the longer it takes the first cracked copy to reach BT/Usenet/P2P, the fewer sales will be lost to casual downloaders. This is especially important during the first few post-release weeks, which is when many games have the bulk of their total sales.

      If you've got time, ability and determination, you will crack the game. I hope you're cracking a copy that you've purchased.

      If you're determined to get a free copy of the game, you will wait until a crack is available, and no amount of cajoling, marketing, or DRM will make you buy a copy.

      However, what about Joe Gamer, the guy who really wants to play the game and doesn't have the ability or desire to crack it himself? The longer he has to wait for a crack, the more likely he is to just pony up the money and buy a legit copy. This describes the large majority of gamers, and this is the group that copy protection is ultimately aimed at.

      I'm not a big fan of DRM - it's a pain to work with, both as a user and as a developer, and it almost always puts burdensome, often anti-fair-use restrictions on what I can do with media that I have purchased/licensed/whatever. But these guys seem to be taking a moderately enlightened approach; lock down copying and number of installs at first, then relax the restrictions when the peak sales period is over. If this approach improves the commercial success of good games and lets developers keep making more, then I can live with it.

      (And since the parent put this on record, I am also a computer scientist and a former professional game developer.)

  2. fun yes; groundbreaking no by SEAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bioshock was definitely overhyped in my opinion. The atmosphere and art direction were good, no doubt. But gameplay was nothing new from other first person shooters. In fact, I'd say it was even more limited than System Shock 2 or Thief. Stealth as an option? Not really. You pretty much had to fight your way through the game. There were no conversations with decisions to make (ala Fallout). Just recorded conversations you could pick up through the game much like the goofy notes found in No One Lives Forever. There was very little interaction in the game other than combat. No vehicles. Not much in the way of object interaction, either.

    Also a much hyped feature was the ability to create your own items like ammo. Well... not really. It was just a collect-the-crap thing that allowed you to sort of unlock extra ammo. It wasn't on the level of, say, the spellbuilder in the Elder Scrolls series.

    Finally, there were a lot of plot discrepancies and things that pulled me out of the storyline. Like if I were a plane crash survivor, discovering this underwater city, why would I just inject myself with a syringe I found on a table? There are a lot of things like that which caused the game to simply fall back into the vanilla FPS genre. I find it comparable to Heretic / Hexen, with modern graphics.

    The work they did was definitely polished but it's disappointing because there is SO MUCH MORE they could've done with the storyline and gameplay.

  3. The real problem... by kturner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The real problem, I think, is that hype has made game players disappointed with games as they're actually delivered. When a game is unexpectedly good, we all marvel over the 'sleeper hit.'"


    Hence the outstanding success and praise of games like Gears of War. Granted, GoW had its own following of hype before the release, but nothing like how Mass Effect and Halo 3 are at the moment.

    With GoW, gamers all around expected it to be a good game, but never quite had that "OMG! I'LL DIE IF I DON'T GET THIS!" feeling until after it was released and everyone realized how well made it was.

    Yet, with Halo 3, we have the popularity of the series plus the teaser of a multiplayer beta pumping steroids into every fanboy's wet dreams. You made a great point in predicting how critical people will be with the game, but that's to be expected. We're human, we live in our minds and hope for the absolute best.

    BioShock is an amazing game, even if it is considered easy to most gamers.
    Making the low difficulty level is purposely done to help entice new FPS users. Also, so you don't end up with a controller lodged in your television.
    --
    I use sudo in my everyday conversations so I can gain root access.
  4. Re:It's OK by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the worst thing that can be said about a game is that it is too much like System Shock 2, then that means it is an excellent game. Complaining about that seems to be like saying, "Man, I wish this candy weren't so delicious."

    --
    ...but is it art?
  5. My small beefs 4/5 by Foo2rama · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see the game as a 4/5 it is not perfect or particularly pushing any boundaries.

    AI
    Non existent the see you they chase you, you are behind them or over a certain distance they have no idea you are there.

    Plasmids
    At this time there is no reason to really ever use anything other then the electrical plasmid and sometimes the telekinesis plasmid. This system should have been genre changing see level and monster design for more info. The telekinesis plasmid should be as great and as effective as the physics gun in HL II but ends up being a poor imitation. If I pick up a table or a metal object why is it not an effective bullet shield?

    Level Design
    You would think that the level design would force and encourage the use of other plasmids some levels the ice or fire would be more effective, then just using the electrical one. This would have been a great way to encourage the use of other plasmids. Physics puzzles for bonuses anyone? HLII used physics puzzles effectively, and so far no one has done it. Bioshock has the mechanic to do it but strangely did not.

    Monster Design
    For the most part there are 5 monster types in the game that just gain more power or a few abilities to make them more difficult. This would have been the easiest way to make the plasmid system way more effective some monsters have different resists. Why are there only 2 variants of Big Daddies? There is no technique or skill needed to kill them they are just damage tanks, put enough damage into them and they die. Why do they not have different weaknesses on different levels? Why does level design not encourage anything more then a run and gun to kill them?

    What was done right
    Great looking game, with a great story arch. The game feels very non-linear (while it is.) Sound and VO is excellent. The over all art direction is unparalleled in FPS's. Oh and a blast to play! Which is the most important. Do not get me wrong Bioshock is a great game, but they set out to change the way FPS's are done with the plasmid system and just did not fully realize the implications of this feature set.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.