"Challenge Room" DLC Doesn't Follow BioShock's Strengths

Kotaku took a look at the "Challenge Room" downloadable content for the PS3 version of BioShock. They came to the conclusion that while the combat is entertaining, it doesn't have the same focus on the story that made BioShock such a good game. Quoting: "What's really bothering me is the lack of fiction. I'm not asking for a new ending or a tacked-on chapter that somehow changes the fantastic story of BioShock — why fix something that isn't broken, right? It's just that what made BioShock special was the story. Oh, sure, the graphics were spiffy, the art style was cool and the game really does play well (not too glitchy or difficult to manage). But to me, BioShock without its story is like a Twinkie without its filling — still somewhat tasty, but hollow and far less satisfying."

Comments

Read Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the source of their story.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[Carbon016]

Bioshock ITSELF was written better than that pap. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear you. Ayn Rand thought the way to tell her philosophy was to set up straw men, then have the ubermench that embodies her philosophy rant for five pages to knock them down.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[KDR_11k]

Um, a book being horribly written is a reason not to read it and get a summary from somewhere else instead.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[Garrett Fox]

Eh, there's a good story buried in there. There's a movie version scheduled for next year, and apparently the people involved understand that the book has serious flaws they need to work around. Here's a case where Hollywood adaptation might actually improve the story.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[Mensurationist]

There are no arguments in AS, regardless of what the Randroids claim. Making sock puppets spout tripe is not making arguments.

It's great reading though; you can play skinny-bingo.

1) Give yourself 5 points when a skinny or well-formed character tells you something that Rand wants you to agree with. Give yourself another 5 points when a fat or formless character tells you something that Rand wants you to disagree with.

2) Count up at the end.

3) Profit!

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[Nazlfrag]

Here's a good summary.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[WDot]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_contests_index

To be absolutely fair, the Ayn Rand Institute gives tens of thousands of dollars to students each year in essay contests where you write about Ayn Rand's books. I don't know about you, but for $10,000 I'd absolutely LOVE Atlas Shrugged. =p

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[ravenshrike]

No it wasn't. There were more plotholes in that game than Star Wars. The most glaringly obvious being that all forms of economies require expansion in their very nature because without expansion even the most heavily regulated economies become nothing more than a slow multi-generational death. Therefore, anybody creating a 'capitalist paradise' would account for such phenomenon and place his paradise accordingly. Which means that first things first, Bioshock would have been set in space.

Re:Read Atlas Shrugged

[khellendros1984]

Oh! And they could have an evil artificial intelligence that caused the problems instead of sea slug goo!

Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[caitsith01]

I recently gave in and finally gave Bioshock a go. To give me some gaming cred, my favourite games include, amongst others, Quake III, Civilization 2, Oblivion, Deus Ex, STALKER, XCOM, Half Life (1, not 2), Goldeneye, Grand Prix 2, Total Annihilation and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. In other words, if the game is good I don't care if it's a shooter, strategy game, adventure game, whatever.

I had heard that this was "the best game of all time", "revolutionary", etc etc ad nauseum, so I had high expectations. Those expectations were not met. Not even close. This is not the best game of all time. In fact, it's not even the best game of the year it was released.

Graphics - generally good, sometimes, a bit clunky looking (full detail, running smoothly at 1280x1024), occasionally amazing (some of the water effects, in particular).

Story - interesting for a while, but pretty one-dimensional. Man tries to build perfect civilization. Man fails. Yes, I know there are twists.

Style - unquestionably incredible. I am a big fan of art deco and art nouveau, and I thought the actual art design in the game was stunning. The creepy 1920s-30s music, the architecture, the weird statues and sculptures, this stuff is all amazing.

So what's wrong with it? The gameplay stinks. Really, really, really stinks. Splicers are all virtually identical. Big Daddies are all identical. The game is utterly linear, and plays like a glorified version of Wolf3D in the sense that it's all about "go here to get this key to open this door to get this key to open that door" and so on. As amazing as the art design is, the level design and gameplay are uninspired.

But all of that would be forgivable if the actual combat was any good. Instead, it is pathetically dismal. The weapons feel clunky and are difficult to aim and use. The enemies basically either run straight at you or straight away from you. Fighting Big Daddies is a ridiculous grind of run... zap... shoot... run... The actual magic... er, sorry, nano-... sorry, "plasmid" powers are boring and generic, and the 'customization' adds nothing of note.

It's not scary. It's not clever. It's amazing looking, stylish, boring, so imprecise it feels like it's on rails, and repetitive. COD4 had similarly stunning graphics, but at least it's gameplay was addictively, compellingly fun. It is also clearly not a 'spiritual successor' to System Shock 2 - the closest to that has to be Deus Ex 1. It obviously had a great marketing campaign, but I'd be happy to never hear about it again.

End rant. I just love PC gaming, and I hate for this to be held out as a great PC game. If you believe this to be true, for god's sake go and play a patched up version of STALKER to see the kind of thing you're missing.

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[p0tat03]

Splicers are all virtually identical. Big Daddies are all identical. The game is utterly linear, and plays like a glorified version of Wolf3D in the sense that it's all about "go here to get this key to open this door to get this key to open that door" and so on. As amazing as the art design is, the level design and gameplay are uninspired.

Goldeneye and HL1 - two of your favorite games - are *precisely* like this. Both games are utterly linear, devoid of any way for the player to affect the plot (both are worse than Bioshock in this manner), and both games feature hordes of identical enemies.

for god's sake go and play a patched up version of STALKER to see the kind of thing you're missing.

Ugh, STALKER was tripe. It's a glorified MMOG without the online, and without the social fun-ness. Beyond the myriad of technical failings, the game was pointless meandering just like Oblivion, except that at least in Oblivion enemy mobs don't respawn 5 seconds after you turn your back. The mechanics are stale, the setting was cool, but ultimately its unashamedly RPG-esque elements really do a lot to pull you out of the immersiveness of the world. Not a horrible game, but certainly nothing too noteworthy, not even close to GOTY material. STALKER is best served as a guide for future open-world FPS developers as a case study of the whole being more than the sum of a game's parts.

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[caitsith01]

Goldeneye and HL1 - two of your favorite games - are *precisely* like this. Both games are utterly linear, devoid of any way for the player to affect the plot (both are worse than Bioshock in this manner), and both games feature hordes of identical enemies.

Ah yes, but let's look at them.

Goldeneye:
- extremely wide variety of interesting levels
- excellent and fun to use weapons
- unique slow-movement pace
- phenomenally good controls and combat mechanics
- one of the best multiplayer console games ever made in terms of both skill required and fun
- character I actually like and care about

This game was primarily included on my list for its multiplayer.

Half Life:
- groundbreaking (at the time) level of story and variety for a FPS
- interesting and unique storyline
- superb combat mechanics
- relatively intelligent enemy AI (many games are still worse)

Ugh, STALKER was tripe. It's a glorified MMOG without the online, and without the social fun-ness. Beyond the myriad of technical failings, the game was pointless meandering just like Oblivion, except that at least in Oblivion enemy mobs don't respawn 5 seconds after you turn your back. The mechanics are stale, the setting was cool, but ultimately its unashamedly RPG-esque elements really do a lot to pull you out of the immersiveness of the world. Not a horrible game, but certainly nothing too noteworthy, not even close to GOTY material. STALKER is best served as a guide for future open-world FPS developers as a case study of the whole being more than the sum of a game's parts.

If you think STALKER was "tripe" then you are hardly worth arguing with. Or perhaps you have no imagination - it is far and away the scariest and most atmospheric game I've played. Oh, and enemies don't "respawn" in STALKER (except in certain plot-critical situations where it is worked into the game seamlessly, e.g. guys arriving in a helicopter) - go and google "A-Life".

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[Xiroth]

The massive strength of Bioshock's gameplay was the variety of approaches you could take to the combat. I played on hard, so direct combat with just about anything got me dead pretty quickly. My style essentially evolved into a massive amount of trap laying - barrels, mines, turrets, drone cameras, the works. I found the final boss ridiculously easy with this style - just set up some massive explosive trap areas, lead him in and bye-bye boss.

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[NickFortune]

It is also clearly not a 'spiritual successor' to System Shock 2 - the closest to that has to be Deus Ex 1.

I'd be interested to know what you thought was good about SS2 that bioshock didn't accomplish. I mean the gameplay is linear in the same way as is Bioshock's (work hard to open up a level, and then you can roam at will), the Bioshock monsters are pretty much a 1:1 mapping from SS2 with the splicers showing IMHO a bit more visual and auditory variety than the Many from SS2. Even the big daddies have a SS2 counterpart in the rumblers. The splicing is about the same as the cybernetic modules from SS2, the weapons upgrade mechanism is about the same.

It also kept details like the audio dairies and the ghosts, a rich cast of characters (most of whose corpses you eventually find). There's also the motif of a cental all-controlling intelligence. Really - what was it about SS2 that you liked that wasn't in Bioshock?

The enemies basically either run straight at you or straight away from you

I dunno, maybe you need to play it a higher difficulty level or something. The leadheads move and circle strafe when I play. The nitro splicers hide, ambush, and hide again. The spider splicers hide on the ceiling and change between melee and ranged attacks. The houdinis teleport for heaven's sake. You sure you're playing the same game as the rest of us?

I just love PC gaming, and I hate for this to be held out as a great PC game

It was all right. Like you say, I loved the style and the setting, and it was nice to see the SS2 ideas given another spin, even if they couldn't use the name. However, the thing that raised it from "OK" to "great" in my opinion, was the brain candy involved. The examination of Objectivism, its strengths and failings. And at the end of the day, you're left to draw your own conclusions, Did rapture fail because Ryan found an adversary of equal talent in the person of Fontaine? Or was the flaw inherent in the economic system he established? Or was it in Ryan himself when he abandoned his principles rather than yeild control?

I'm sorry you didn't like it, but any game that can make me ask questions like that is going to end up on my all time favourite list.

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[tibman]

I second the Half-Life1 AI being good. Many games today still don't measure up to it.. that was 1998! It was mostly the squad behavior that made it so good.. though i've read that wasn't programmed in. Each entity acted on it's own.. any appearance of teamwork was emergent behavior.

Re:Bioshock REALLY isn't that good

[johannesg]

I'd be interested to know what you thought was good about SS2 that bioshock didn't accomplish. I mean the gameplay is
linear in the same way as is Bioshock's (work hard to open up a level, and then you can roam at will),

Each place in SS2 had its own distinct feel: some places you had to (re)visit to get upgrades, to buy certain things, to heal, whatever. Some places were creepy, some were dangerous, some were fairly safe.

Moreover, the rather brilliant level design meant that shortcuts opened as the game progressed, so you weren't backtracking long distances but simply revisiting earlier levels that were now easily reachable from almost anywhere.

Contrast this to Bioshock: you visit each location exactly once, and despite the beautiful graphics, there is no difference in *experience* between them: the level of threat is identical everywhere.

In SS2 you make choices: which skills, which weapons, where to go and what to do. Bioshock is a series of levers you need to pull in order, and then you reach the end.

You are right that Bioshock allows you to roam at will. There is just no reason for doing so.

the Bioshock monsters are pretty much a 1:1 mapping from SS2 with the splicers showing IMHO a bit more visual and auditory variety
than the Many from SS2. Even the big daddies have a SS2 counterpart in the rumblers.

The enemies in SS2 are *creepy*: the cyborg midwives with their "must protect eggs", the protocol droids who were apologizing as they came up to kill you, etc.

It is not so much about the number or the variety, it is about character. SS2 had plenty of that, and Bioshock not so much. The big daddy / little sister thing was really overrated by the game designers, in my opinion. Certainly the dynamic never really worked for me, but maybe that's just me.

The splicing is about the same
as the cybernetic modules from SS2, the weapons upgrade mechanism is about the same.

No it is not. In SS2 you made real choices, you couldn't change your mind five times without any consequence. In Bioshock you pretty much can.

It also kept details like the audio dairies and the ghosts, a rich cast of characters (most of whose corpses you
eventually find).

You do? How would you know? I only recall a very small number of recognizable corpses. Not that it matters, I never recognized anybody in SS2 either.

There's also the motif of a cental all-controlling intelligence. Really - what was it about SS2
that you liked that wasn't in Bioshock?

In Bioshock you are on rails, moving from one end to the other. I never went into a bar just to drink a beer, only to shoot the place up and remove any splicers that might be present. Same with every other place I visited. What is the purpose of the tram system (you know, with the submarines) if you never go back to an earlier level anyway?

And once you start seeing it that way, the illusion drops away and the game is revealed to be "House of the Dead" with better graphics and a pretentious storyline.

[...] the thing that raised it from "OK" to "great" in my
opinion, was the brain candy involved. The examination of Objectivism, its strengths and failings.
And at the end of the day, you're left to draw your own conclusions, Did rapture fail because Ryan
found an adversary of equal talent in the person of Fontaine?
Or was the flaw inherent in the economic system he established? Or was it in Ryan himself
when he abandoned his principles rather than yeild control?

I would add the question "why would you care about this while you are following the rails?"

Oh, and for the record: I did like it, but it felt like it could it could have been so much more. And in the end, it didn't really leave a lasting impression.

Re:PS3 vs Xbox Players

[KDR_11k]

What's that got to do with PS3 vs XBox? Modern AAA games are all alike in how stupid their puzzles are, an experienced gamer usually sees a room once and solves the puzzle instantly, no complicated thought required (and even then many games insist on giving you some obnoxious "buddy" that will ram you face first into the solution if you seem to be stuck for more than three seconds). I'm of the oppinion that such puzzles are stupid, if you're going to throw a puzzle in at least use one that requires REAL thought (try Toki Tori on WiiWare or, to some degree, Braid on XBLA). Stupid puzzles are pointless and should just be cut from the game.