Heavy Rain, BioShock 2 Delayed

Quantic Dream has announced that their much-anticipated thriller Heavy Rain is being pushed back to 2010. Co-CEO Guillaume de Fondaumiere said that the game is on-time and on-budget, but also that they don't want it to come out at the same time as many other high-profile games. "Most publishers today realize that it's not ideal to release a new IP or a new genre just before Christmas. It's a very crowded place to be, and certain games need more space to live their life. Everybody at working on the project, both at Quantic and Sony, believe this is the right time." Meanwhile, Take-Two announced that BioShock 2 would be delayed as well, backing off from their October 30th EU release date and saying it will come out during the "first half of calendar 2010."

Comments

Will get over it.

[mjwx]

Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

Re:Will get over it.

[alienunknown]

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending.

Thats not true. The game has three endings that are determined by if you rescue the little sisters or harvest them.

Overall, I think it was a good game but we all have different tastes.

Re:Will get over it.

[wild_quinine]

If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

Well, you might as well hold your breath anyway. It's not like you'll die or anything. The worst that will happen is that you'll respawn six seconds away from your current position.

Re:Will get over it.

[johannesg]

Bioshock was not that good of a game. It removed the best parts of System Shock, consolised the gameplay and removed any challenge to the player.

Bioshock had no replay value as both choices you could have made led to exactly the same ending. There was no need to ever alter your style of play as you could carry every weapon and every power in the game at once and there were two or three over powered attacks which made it pointless to use anything else, not that it mattered as you simply just couldn't die no matter what you did. 2K completely removed any RPG elements and dumbed down the FPS elements in order to make the game accessable to consoles. If Bioshock 1 is any indication on how Bioshock 2 will turn out I'm not holding my breath for it.

I have to agree with that. Choices in a game can be meaningful if they impact the game, somehow. But ending movies? Do they really think I'm going to play through the entire game again just to see a different 30 seconds of badly rendered movie?

Meaningful choices could include keeping one weapon and dropping another, but as you say, you can carry everything with you all the time. Replay value could also have been increased by experimenting with different powers, but again, you can already do that on your first playthrough so why bother?

Ultimately Bioshock was not a bad game, but it was not a successor to System Shock in any way. Instead it was a highly polished, very pretty Doom-clone. And since I've had enough of those by now, I won't be shelling out for part 2.

Re:Will get over it.

[Mushdot]

I thought it was ok but fairly over hyped and I really don't understand all the 'controversy' over the little sisters thing.

As for three different endings, could you be bothered to finish it three times? I couldn't, the game started to drag towards the end the first time round.

But like you say, people have different tastes.

Re:Will get over it.

[John Titor]

I agree, but the same can be said for most modern games. You can't fail, there is no real death or setback. Most games have a low difficulty factor and even if you do die there is no real penalty. As a result the modern games play out like animated movies. In an effort to reduce a players frustration the big game houses have produced games that offer no challenge and therefore no feeling of accomplishment / reward for completing the game. Ever complete Ghosts n Goblins ? that made you feel good, not everyone can do it without cheats. Three lives sparingly added to and not recovered at the end of each level. If you die - give the player a choice to give up an inventory item (as if you were mugged) or go back to the beginning of a level- make it a penalty of some kind. I stopped playing single player games for this very reason, out smarting a human player is a better challenge, though people in games become predictable after a while too. At least when you fail in a MP game it is a good honest failure.... you lose .

Re:Will get over it.

[RogueyWon]

Bioshock was a competent game. It's biggest problem was that it had been massively over-sold. On the gameplay front, it was supposed to be the spiritual successor to System Shock 2, which, as you and others have noted, it wasn't. On the story front, it was supposed to set new standards for depth and intelligence in game story-telling. In truth, it wasn't anything like as clever as it thought it was, failing to rise above the level of pseudo-sophistication I'd expect from an overconfident political sciences undergraduate. The element of moral choice was so black and white as to be ludicrous; you could either be an angel or a demon, with nothing in between. If you want to see moral choices done properly, then turn to Fallout 3, not to Bioshock.

The gameplay was effectively a run and gun shooter with a few irritating-but-easy puzzle minigames and a bit of spellcasting thrown in. I don't actually blame console-ification for this; you can actually have some excellent, deep gameplay on the consoles. I think it was related more to lazy design and a serious underestimation of the capabilities of the target audience.

Of course, it was still a reasonable game, considered on its own terms. The combat was moderately fun, though it suffered from some balance issues that generally encouraged players to be very conservative in their combat tactics, ignoring the more creative ways of using the environment and the plasmids. Visually it was pretty nice, with the art deco theme being generally well realised.

So yes, not actively bad, but if they want to get me excited about a sequel, they need to make clear that they're going to be much more ambitious this time around.

Re:Will get over it.

[Thyamine]

I disagree and agree. Every FPS basically does what your complaints are. Some (like Call of Duty or Halo for example) might limit how much you can carry, but they're all artificial limits. You can only carry two pistols, or one pistol and a rifle, how are those equivalent spacewise? What I loved about Bioshock was the environment and letting myself become immersed in it. I expected a FPS, and got a FPS, but thoroughly enjoyed the art deco style, the fear they build in when you come around corners and here someone singing, seeing shadows around the bend, the environment they clearly spent time putting together.

And if you want to die more, you can turn off the Vita-Chambers (I think that's their name) so that you don't respawn. That's just a toggle setting.

Re:Will get over it.

[Sockatume]

I dunno, any game that ends in 30 seconds of badly rendered movie sounds like a spiritual successor SS2 to me.

Re:Will get over it.

[FourthAge]

Those are just different videos, though. No impact on actual gameplay. I was deeply disappointed when I discovered this, as I had hoped for a major difference in the later stages of the game. For example:

1. You rescue all the little sisters. The German doctor helps you defeat the bad guy. You are the good guy. Your altruistic actions demonstrate that Ayn Rand^W^W Andrew Ryan's hypothesis was wrong - altruism is not, in fact, the root of all evil, because it saves the city and the lives of the remaining survivors.

2. You harvest all the little sisters. The bad guy helps you defeat the German doctor. You are a puppet of the bad guy. Your self-serving actions demonstrate that Objectivism is a flawed political philosophy, because greed will always lead to tyranny.

3. You harvest some and rescue others. You escape the city, but only by condemning the remaining survivors to certain death. You are the morally ambiguous guy. You embody Objectivism; you have rejected altruism and acted to maximise your own benefit.

That's how you do three endings! That's the sort of conclusion that the game's beginning implied, because Bioshock does start off very well. And yet, nothing. Just a shitty sub comic-book battle with a cyborg gangster, followed by a selection of three different videos depending on decisions that are otherwise irrelevant.

Re:Will get over it.

[Ascagnel]

In one interview, 2K Boston (the developers) said they didn't like their ending and it was more a matter of not enough time than about really putting and ending on it.

Re:Will get over it.

[RogueyWon]

Fallout 3 is a mixed bag, perhaps. It has a few choices that are a bit too start "nuke Megaton or save it", but it also has some which are far more complex.

I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

Yes, now.

Right now.

Here be spoilers.

Ok, for those who are still reading, here's the basic synopsis of The Pitt.

The Lone Wanderer picks up a distress call, from the North of the Capital Wastelands. He makes his way there, and comes to the assistance of Werhner, an escaped slave under attack by raiders. Werhner outlines his situation to the Lone Wanderer; he has escaped from slavery in Pittsburg, and wishes for the Lone Wanderer's help in returning there and liberating the slaves.

The Lone Wanderer travels with Werhner to Pittsburg. Unlike most major US cities, "The Pitt" did not receive any direct nuclear strikes during the war, so its buildings are largely intact (though crumbling somewhat after 200 years of neglect). Unfortunately, it wasn't spared the fallout, and the city is highly contaminated, with radiation poisoning, disease and mutation being rife, even by the general standards of the Fallout 3 world. The city is currenly in the grip of a plague that mutates sufferers into mindless, psychotic freaks. It is rumoured that Lord Ashur, the ruler of the Pitt, has developed a cure, but it has not been forthcoming. As part of his plan to free the slaves, Werhner wants you to steal the cure.

At first, the Lone Wanderer has relatively few choices. He follows Werhner's plan to infiltrate the city as a slave. Life in The Pitt is brutal and usually short. The slaves are brutally oppressed by the slavers, many of whom are essentially common thugs. Because the high levels of radiation and mutation in the Pitt make natural reproduction almost impossible, the slave population is maintained through kidnapping of new slaves, as well as trade with the slavers of the Capital Wastelands.

Eventually, the Lone Wanderer manages to win his freedom, through victory in a series of gladiatorial arena battles. As one of the few slaves to win his freedom in this manner, he is granted an audience with Lord Ashur. Werhner's plan is for the Lone Wanderer to use this as an opportunity to steel the cure (killing Lord Ashur if possible), and he has timed a slave uprising to coincide with it. With the city's leadership thrown into chaos by the Lone Wanderer, the slaves would be able to overthrow the regime and escape.

Ok... so far, it all seems simple enough. Oppressed slaves, a charismatic leader trying to win their freedom, and brutal oppressors. Not much of a moral choice here.

Then the Lone Wanderer meets Ashur. Ashur isn't some comic book villain. He's trying to build a functioning society. He doesn't want to use slavery, but so complete has been the collapse of civilisation that the only way to get the rebuilding process started is through force. Once conditions improve, the regime will be relaxed and slavery abolished. Of course, the Lone Wanderer doesn't have to believe Ashur; plenty of characters in Fallout 3 will lie to your face - but he does give the impression of being sincere.

On the subject of a cure, Ashur has more concrete proof. The basis for a cure exists; his own infant daughter, who has been born with natural immunity to the effects of radiation poisoning and the plague. Ashur's scientist wife is working to discern the factors that grant her this immunity, so that it can be replicated. The cure's not going to be able to help the current slaves, but it might be the salvation of the next generation.

Ashur also explains that Werhner is his own former Lieutenant, who turned against him because he wanted more power. Ashur knows that the Lone Wanderer has been sent by Werhner and offers him a choice; turn against Werhner and help surpress the slave revolt.

This was, without a doubt, the most

Re:Will get over it.

[wjousts]

I think the best of these comes in the second downloadable content pack, "The Pitt". I'm about to spoiler this massively, so those who haven't yet played this, but think they might do so, look away now.

Okay, you might be right. I haven't played "The Pitt" because I've been waiting for the chance to buy it without dealing with Microsoft Points. And I didn't read the rest of you message because of the spoiler warning!

Re:Will get over it.

[Lemming Mark]

SPOILERS ahead - if anyone cares.

Re the good vs bad choice ...

They had a crack at introducing moral ambiguity into that when you meet the first little sister - Atlas warns you that there are lives at stake and that the little sister isn't a real child, so you ought to kill her (a monster) so you can survive yourself and save his family. It's not presented as black-and-white which is the best choice in that first decision. Beyond that they didn't make you think about it so much and there was very little penalty to saving them in the rest of the game. They could have worked harder at that aspect.

"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

All this anticipation must be hard on a company. What with so many people wanting to buy the product, it's a tough business trying to keep them at bay until the time is right. No sense in releasing on time. It's much better to release later so that people have already spent their Christmas money. After all, if those customers are playing other games and have less money, it means that they are more likely to buy this much anticipated game.

Nothing like giving your competitors a chance to gain a foothold. Nosiree. On time and on budget! Delaying release to maximize customer demand. The logic is foolproof!

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd?

[Rogerborg]

Look, it's not all about maximising profit. When you've got a game that's going to be so much better than the competition that it would simply blow them out of the market and take all the available money, you have to ask yourself: is this really what I want to do? Is that the sort of person I want to be?

These publishers might have to buy slightly smaller yachts, but at least some other guys will get to order little yachts as well. There's no point in having the biggest yacht at the club if there's nobody else there to lord it over.

Re:"Much anticipated" == lost in the crowd?

[spire3661]

Movie industry has been doing this for decades. This is not a new technique at all and is smart business.

Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Quantic Dream will find some time to put some actual gameplay into Heavy Rain now. From what they've shown so far it's Dragon's Lair without the skill or excitement.

Honestly, folks, if I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. And it probably won't have excruciatingly bad actors that you have to prod every few seconds to make them say their next line. Well, unless Keanu Reeves is in it.

Good! This is a GOOD THING!

[MrMista_B]

A rushed game will be bad forever.

Take the time to get it right, and it will /suck less/.

Please, before all the bitching and moaning, remember - what would you prefer? A good game, or a rushed game?

I don't know why people complain about Bioshock

[Toreo asesino]

I thought it was a decent game; good graphics, excellent atmosphere and really well choreographed scenes & story telling. I've not played System Shock 2, but you can't deny it was good fun. Playing it the 2nd time round is worth doing too; noticing stuff that's explained later on is good fun too - a bit like watching The Matrix the 2nd time round; suddenly everything's much clearer.

Re:I don't know why people complain about Bioshock

[johannesg]

Because it was just a first person shooter! It was advertized as so much more... In SS2 you have freedom of movement (Bioshock is on rails), you get to make some real choices about how to approach the game (and it matters greatly for gameplay), and it has some fantastic storytelling (of which Bioshock is a pale ripoff).

I've not played System Shock 2

Well, that's your problem right there. Shame it is so hard to find, it is well worth playing, even today.

Yes, even the much anticipated ones.

[Sockatume]

It's a well-established and much storied fact that any game, no matter how good, can get totally fucked by the Christmas rush. Pick up a back issue of MCV or Edge and you'll find plenty of rueful developers and publishers discussing how their hundred-million-dollar project simply did not sell because the top three slots were occupied by that year's EA Sports titles and a new GTA. Essentially, the game has to sell within a three month window, and if that window is occupied by six must-haves already, then everything is screwed. Even the must haves are screwed because only a small minority of gamers head out and buy a half-dozen titles in a single quarter. It becomes a lottery. No long tail exists for games retail, so once that chaotic launch window has passed, those games are off the shelves and it's all over.