Slashdot Mirror


BioShock 2 Interviews and Early Looks

Parz writes with word that new information is emerging about the much-anticipated BioShock 2. Eurogamer has a detailed write-up about the game, saying that it raises curiosity and exhibits plot-depth in a manner similar to the first game. Gamespot has a video interview with some of the developers, in which they talk about some of the new environments and how they're able to do more with the story in a sequel by not having to explain the fundamental characteristics of the setting. In an interview with Gameplayer, Lead Level Architect Hogarth de la Plante said, "You'll see locations in BioShock 2 that are completely flooded interior structures that you can walk through out in the ocean." A gameplay trailer was recently released, and screenshots are available as well.

11 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. What's the big deal. by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews. I'm a long time PC gamer though, all these multiplatform reviews seem to skew things a bit. Beyond nice looking water I can't really think of anything that made me interested in the game. Maybe it's the steampunk novelty that everyone digs.

    1. Re:What's the big deal. by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was surprised it even got good reviews

      The story was very good, by FPS standards. Not Deus Ex good, but good. A couple levels were well done. Good atmosphere throughout. The gameplay was average or a bit below average.

      If any of that strikes you as being a reason to give the game a good review, then that's probably why. I would say it's one of those shooters you don't really play for the shooting, if that makes any sense.

      I do think that the gaming press in general is prone to praise anything that doesn't completely suck, and often pushes games that are OK at best as if they were truly great. I also think it's gotten worse since console gaming took off, for whatever reason.

    2. Re:What's the big deal. by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews.

      The art direction in Bioshock was possibly the best I've seen in a video game. The visual design combined with the voice acting and soundtrack created an outstanding and coherent setting for the story of the game. In addition, Andrew Ryan is one of the most interesting and memorable video game characters of all time. The gameplay was also fairly creative.

      That being said, the story (once you get past the terrific setting) was forgettable, and the gameplay got somewhat repetitive once you got used to it. I also wasn't impressed by the "morality" aspect of the game (though I never am impressed by morality elements in games). So the game was generally enjoyable to play, but there are much more "fun" games out there.

      The art direction alone is enough to make this game significant, and it should be appreciated for its achievements in this area, if for no other reason.

    3. Re:What's the big deal. by Ephemeriis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I played through Bioshock, it didn't impress me at all. I was surprised it even got good reviews. I'm a long time PC gamer though, all these multiplatform reviews seem to skew things a bit. Beyond nice looking water I can't really think of anything that made me interested in the game. Maybe it's the steampunk novelty that everyone digs.

      The big deal, I think, was the atmosphere/setting/storyline/whatever.

      The game mechanics were fairly unimpressive. Run around, shoot guys, maybe do the occasional 'hacking' mini-game... Nothing special.

      The atmosphere though, was pretty impressive.

      Very nice, very novel visuals. Impressive architecture slowly giving way to the sea... Constant presence of water... The sensation that tons of pressure were bearing down on you... Constant dripping, groaning, creaking...

      There were a few good characters, too. Andrew Ryan was one of the more interesting villains in recent history.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    4. Re:What's the big deal. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think-- and admittedly, this is just my guess-- that part of the hype was due to younger console players who'd never played games like System Shock or Fallout, and maybe haven't really played many FPS outside of Halo.

      If you've been playing computer FPSs and RPGs for the past decade or two, Bioshock doesn't seem like it's all that Interesting. Portal, for example, was much more interesting and innovative (short as it was). But I think I might have been wowed by the aesthetic and some of the gameplay if I hadn't played the games that Bioshock is rehashing.

    5. Re:What's the big deal. by Polumna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm 27. I played the Fallouts (less Tactics) religiously, and both System Shocks before Bioshock. I still think Bioshock deserved the vast majority of the hype it got. (Some of the nonsense about the story being the best thing since sliced bread, I felt, was a little misplaced or over-exaggerated, but other than that...)

      Why can't it just be good in its own right? Virtually everything is a rehash. You can't possibly expect every game to be Portal, and I don't think you can reasonably expect people to only get excited once every ten years when a Portal-class game comes out. Bioshock wasn't terribly original. It was beautiful, fun and engrossing. Better yet, it gave me another game to play in a similar environment to its aforementioned predecessors.

      I'd rather studios continue to make good games rehashing those ideas than just let those environments and feelings die. I don't want to have to play Fallout YET AGAIN in a dos emulator on Linux 3.432.2 in thirty years to get that same feeling. So when a derivative comes out, and it's good, I'll continue to get almost as excited as when those old games I'm reminded of did... I can know the roots of the games I like without being shackled by them.

    6. Re:What's the big deal. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There were a few good characters, too. Andrew Ryan was one of the more interesting villains in recent history.

      This was one of the few things that Bioshock did right, the departure from the Hollywood requirement to have a clear hero/villain. Well until after you meet and kill Ryan, then it becomes horribly formulaic.

      Besides, The story was just a rehashing of System Shock 2 in a steampunk setting. Altas/Fontain was a direct analogue to Polito/Shodan. Ryan was an analogue to the Many\Diego, whilst they succeed in making the player question weather Ryan was truly a villain they did it in the exact same way as they made the player ask if the Many were truly evil. To me the story of Bioshock was a cut down version of System Shock 2 with less interesting characters in a leaky 1950's setting.

      Now the gameplay was where they really dropped the ball, Firstly the combat mechanic wasn't too bad but it lacked variety so each encounter was almost exactly the same. In SS2 there were clear differences in the weapon you used where as in Bioshock you just equipped something and shot it, it didnt matter what approach you took you'd just end up shooting the enemy. In SS2 the environment was a bit more usable then in Bioshock, you could hack turrets which could be quite effective against opponents in SS2 but in Bioshock you had to end up shooting them yourself as a turret would take half an hour to kill the weakest enemy.

      But the worst parts were the ones that were taken out or dumbed down for the console audience, firstly the RPG style skill system used in SS2 was gone and replaced with a somewhat weaker "enhancement" system which had little real bearing on you ability to operate any weapon. Any kind of real management of money (nanites in SS2) was gone, and there was no inventory management to speak of, in SS2 you had to make choices of what you would carry in Bioshock you could grab anything not nailed down, you were every weapon in the game and the plasmids were more useless then most of the psionic powers in SS2 plus they were interchangeable so you never had to actually decide on what kind of character you were going to have, not that it mattered in Bioshock as every character had to focus on the gun combat.

      Not that it really mattered if you completely sucked at Bioshock because you could never die, as soon as you were killed you would reincarnate at the nearest glowing re-incarnation station with all your equipment and no penalty for dying what so ever and of course this only worked on you.. I know System Shock had a reincarnation system but there was a penalty for using it (cost) and it had to be activated so there was a real chance the player could die (lose progress) before activating the reincarnation system. This mechanic alone made the game pointless to play on any higher difficulty level.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Bioshock 2: by flitty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a sinking feeling this is the game that everyone will point to in the future to show what exactly is wrong with sequels. No matter how technically competent the game is, exploring the same environment, same philisophical questions, and (from what i've seen) fighting the same splicer enemies is not a sequel. It's an expansion pack. Ctrl-X "Big Daddy" Ctrl-V "Big Sister".

    Personally, I would have loved to have seen a real prequel, where you see an Ayn Randian utopia slowly fall apart, where you help businessmen reach their highest potential, which eventually leads to the collapse of rapture. That's an interesting story to tell, and leads right into Bioshock. But no, the game will start with the first crazy splicer you have to kill, and it will be a splicer run and gun.

    I hope I'm wrong about this, but from what i've seen, I doubt I am.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  3. will it work? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Informative

    Will this work with Vista 64? Bioshock is the only game I have that just plain fails on Vista64. I never got to finish it. I kinda want my money back. How could a game publisher overlook such a widely-deployed platform?

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:will it work? by Cythrawl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remove the Pen Tablet features in the add remove windows components and you will find that it works just fine after that

  4. BioShock shouldn't have been a shooter by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atmosphere, art direction, and writing were all spot on. But none of them made any sense in what amounted to a generic shooter.

    As much as I like action games, I got very annoyed with how the gameplay got in the way of the overall experience. It should have been an adventure game or something else with a slower pace, not hyper action shooter part 50.