Be Excellent To Each Other

So, it seems Irrational (sorry, '2k Boston') have admitted that yes, their plan all along WAS just to make System Shock 2 again. Which is an interesting case of rooting around in one's own bins but not an isolated one (Teen Fartass 2, The Supremes Commander: Stop! In the name of love).

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53272



I KNEW IT. And so did Zero Punctuation.

What's more amusing is that they say in the article that the game SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A SUCCESS and that it was all down to marketing it as an action game, as opposed to a RPG-lite with shooty elements.

An odd thing to say after you've just gotten fantastically rich off over 2 million sales on the back of selling the same game twice, with the second time being arguably not nearly as good.

What say you, bezzies? Perhaps it was grinding through the game twice in short succession (1000/1000, natch), or the fact that the entire internet seemed to be spunking over it in the biggest bukkake bath ever, but I can say, hand on heart and Big Daddy figurine atop TV that as a game, it kinda sucked.

It was all down, in my mind, to the art and sound design, and to our Oirish friend Atlas. The combat got steadily more tedious, the plasmids were with a few exceptions half-baked novelties, and the storyline did exactly what System Shock 2's did and featured an excellent twist followed by a sharp descent into shitness.

Do you reckon that this was all clever marketing, as they managed to sell a game which could never have stood on its own combat, as a combat game? And then trusted the (admittedly incredibly intriguing story and setting) to draw all the screaming elmos in and make them love the game as it was supposed to have been loved instead?

I realy liked the game, and never once got bored with the gameplay mechanics although I didnt get bored with assassins creed much so that may say something about me. But I was suprised how well the game has done, it seemed to reach a wider audience rather than the usual pc gamers, even more casual gamers at my uni had it and im sure it must be down to marketing and the imagery nof the game such as the big daddy.

I never thought Bioshock's mechanics were flawed, but then we've had this argument in email a few times now, MA!

Also, you've misrepresented his quotes quite badly. The actual interview is here. They started out trying to remake SS2, but that didn't work at all, and gradually over time they evolved the final design of Bioshock. He doesn't say that Bioshock should have failed, only that they created many failed designs on the way to the final game.

My enjoyment decreased as I neared to end. Beautiful to look at but dull to play once you'd got over half way.

Sold it on as soon as I completed it.

9/10 - 6/10

No more so than Shacknews have, really, with that equally selective quoting.

I was going to say you can't deny it's just like System Shock 2 - but then you've never played it!

Ohoho... *wipes away tear* ANYWAY, it is ridiculously similar to System Shock 2. For all the 'evolving' of the design, so many aspects are virtually identical.

I got as far as killing Dr Steinburg or whatever his name is, before giving up. I'm rubbish at it and I felt I saw the best part of the game when I played the demo.

To be honest, that's not far off.

Another conspiracy theory would be 'Ken Levine REALLY loves Pipe Dream..'

I have killed Steinman, but lack the drive to go back to it often. Lovely atmos etc.

Everyone should at least play till they've completed Fort Frolic. Fort Frolic is awesome. Definitely the high point of the game. Well, apart from THAT cut-scene.

Bioshock was a 10/10 for me until the final fetch quest and annoying, incredibly glitchy boss fight. Take both of those out and replace them with something better (and fucking tested properly) and it would be a much better game.

I'd still give it a 9/10, but the final couple of hours were horrid.

As a massive System Shock 2 fan I had to buy Bioshock, but I've never gone back to it like I did with the original. It is very similar to the old game, except where it really matters.

System Shock 2 is a much better survival horror game, full stop. Every single choice you make when customising your character and equipment matters, as you are battling for survival with very limited resources. Everything you have to work with in System Shock 2 has you living on a knife edge, and it actually has you scrounging for barely working weapons and checking dropped shotguns for leftover shells. In SS2, the ability to bolster your incredibly tight ammo supply by manufacturing shells would have been genius, but in Bioshock it is wasted because you never run low on ammo.

The different skills have a huge bearing on how you play the game - you can't just hack everything, use every weapon, and repair every broken item. This makes it much more replayable, as well as minimising pipemania fatigue (hacking is more simple and quick than in Bioshock anyway). I replayed it all just so I could try out the heavy weapons (which admittedly make the last portion of the game too easy).

Another thing that ruins the tension in Bioshock is the god-damn sploicers. I've lived in London, and I just don't find slightly mentally ill people as frightening as parasite controlled brain-zombie mutants and robot nurses.

Erm, sorry about this, but I just finished Bioshock last week and it really got me thinking - so my initial reply here ranted on and on, and so I turned it into a pseudo editorial piece or something. Please excuse me if it come across a bit obvious and rubbish (oh and it doesn't have any spoilers)...

Bioshock

I bored with Bishock after playing through the first few hours twice (before and after buying a 360). The start was jaw dropping and wonderful, but the underlying FPS mechanics and the overly fast and sloppy combat made the game quite tedious to play through. So I shelved it for about 6 months and came back to it last week. And suddenly it was fantastic. I think why I had so suddenly changed my opinion on the game is because of understanding what makes a game work. Some games click because they give you a playing mechanism to gain mastery over and doing so is satisfying (Guitar Hero) whereas some give a playing mechanism that is shallow but wondrously entertaining (EDF 2017).

I think Bioshock fall into a third category of games that aren't actually about the mechanics of how they play (which in Bioshocks case is very 73%). And are actually acts of subcreation.

I'm not talking about Stories in games as they are typically a hamfisted way of shoehorning the cinema into a game (as sinister agents brilliant MGS4 'review' shows'). Stories just don't work as well in games as they do in books and movies because it isn't the strength of the genre. But I think subcreation is.

The term subcreation comes from Tolkien. Now, I really dislike Lord of the Rings, but one thing that always stuck with me was that Tolkien described his novels not as stories but as acts of creation. He believed that creating an internally consistent world had worth and merit. Stories could occur in the world you created, but it was the world itself that was the most interesting thing. He took it even further believing that by creating a world you were honouring and recreating the steps God took in creating this one.

Bioshock's mechanisms are tedious, but it gives me a world unlike anything I've seen before to explore. It ponders big themes of objectivism and control. And rather than tell a story it lets you piece together events of what happened to the world.

And whilst the mainstream general public wouldn't witter on about it, I think it's a huge part of why these 'subcreation' games break out into mainstream appeal.

One of the massive strengths of games is that this subcreation can explore regions off limits to the narrative. We live in a world that is anything but black and white, but a narrative inherently creates a frame of reference and preferences a perspective.

Assassins Creed was panned in reviews - because it had tedious and repetitive mechanics defining what the game was, yet it was a massive success. I think that's because it created a living breathing world that people wanted to explore. The fact the setting was morally ambiguous made it a world you wanted to understand. And that alone sets it leagues ahead of the Good vs Evil Halo-eque space commando clones or World War II shooters.

GTA IV was an success not because it gave you a Niko's story to watch, but because it gave you a coherent city and let you explore it. The in game ad marketers always remark about how if GTA had real ads for coke then game would be more realistic and improved. But they are ignoring the fact that the adverts and the radio stations are the main methods of communicating to the player. The satirical avenues open to Rockstar are unlike anything available to the mainstream media. If Chris Morris was a child of the computer revolution then he could easily be creating jam-like worlds for us to explore right now.

It a similar reason to why I read Azimov's Science Fiction short stories. Not for any narrative or characterisation, because Azimov is crude and hopeless at that. But because every time he would give me a different world to try on for a few hours. And thats why I like Bioshock. Not for it's tedious combat but for creating a world for me to try on.

And despite being something unique to video games, to actually see a game attempt this is so unusal, that I can forgive Bioshock it's many, many flaws.

::blinks::

I was always running out of ammo in Bioshock. Never had enough of the good stuff.

Good editorial piece there Lave, and I think I completely agree with you. Despite only having played the demo on a mate's X-Box, natch.

Terra Nova, Alpha Centauri, San Andreas, Civilization 4, Grim Fandango and even Silent Hunter III are my fave games because they present an immersive other reality that is completely foreign to me but at the same time one that I can completely sink myself into.

I didn't really have a problem, though and in the last third I took to hitting people with the wrench most of the time.

Though I just saw combat as a means to let me keep exploring.

See, I completely don't agree. If you painted over the beautiful art deco walls with regulation grey, it would be every tunnel-based FPS from Doom to The Darkness.

Thats the point though isn't it? The art deco walls, the audio transcripts, the art displays of Fort Frolic and the Little Sister Orphanege are painted over a very, very bog standard tunnel shooter.

But the paint is worth looking at.

That does link into the twist though - which I could rant about for another page an a half.

Agreed, it's utterly beautiful. I'd no way stretch that to 'realms of subcreation' though. It's pretty. There's about half a level's worth of "ooh, lovely, what delightful design work".

You can make your own bullets in SS2. It's just not very effective.

I never ran out of ammo in Bioshock: I knew exactly where it was. I just couldn't carry it.

TVTropes would call it 'Irregular Pockets'.

I don't know, at the start you see the "No Gods, No Kings, Only Men" and the Industry, Science and Art signs.

Then you systematically explore how those concepts have coped with the rise and fall of an objectivist society. Science is the Hospital, Industry the fish yards, and Art fort frolic.

Then as you progress everything from the Adam and Eve, Big Daddies and Little sisters, VitaChambers, Plasamids and Gun Vending Machines turn away from being game devices into logical progressions that the society reached.

It was a game about working out why everything fit together. Without the tape recordings the game is just a game, but with them it's a coherent world that makes sense.

In the same way that everything in Sands of Time makes sense.

The whole setting is basically a big piss take of Atlas Shrugged, really.

Mmm. Ayn Rand. Oh my. Imagine if Bioshock 2 is obviously heavily inspired by Gravity's Rainbow* eh? 99% review scores a-go-go, new paradigms up the wazzoo.

I think ultimately, Bioshock's pretensions of being more than some mere shooting game and 'See, I read books!' stance simply mirrored that of most games journalists. Which is why I've not played it since the 2nd level. Want to wait until I can come to it without such weight (in real life also etc.)

* Not Rand, I know.

Reading Lave's piece on Bioshock makes me think back to that thread about 'good boring' I started a while back. The problem is that I found Bioshock bad boring.

Hmm, wish my PC could play it and I could find out which it was. Again, I've only played the demo so I can't fully back Lave's opinion after all (sorry Lave, I was over-enthused for your well written funkery) but I do agree with him in principle. I get all annoyed with games that defy their internal logic or copy Halo/Tolkien without putting any effort into genuinely new worlds.

I tried to read Gravity's Rainbow once, but it was too much effort to get through each page and then I had to take it back to the library.

I'd link my view of Bioshock with Sinister's comments on MGS4 - it's fantastic for a games firm to come out with a game that has real thought put into the depth and story, but at the end of the day I want to play a game, and the one underpinning Bioshock was unsatisfying and dull.

I hope we are at some sort of mid-point in gaming, where people are realising that freedom of choice and immersive environments are a great thing, but some time soon we'll see games that converge that with fantastic gameplay.

I have it on my bookshelf. One day I will read it (probably after I return to and finish David Foster Wallace's 'Infinite Jest').

By the way, your sig makes me laugh.

Now might be a good time to point out that the PC version of Bioshock no longer restricts you to five installations.

Also, it's now only £12 for the PC version at Zavvi.



YES I'M GOING TO KEEP POSTING THAT UNTIL SOMEBODY LAUGHS

See, that's the problem - you are distracted to a number of the problems in Bioshock by the 'paint'. Mafia aside, I have not seen another game that so well replicates an authentic feeling (and sounding!) art deco world.

There is no specialization to your character, really - while you can concentrate on using just the wrench or plasmids, there is nothing in place to prevent you (and indeed, you're outright encouraged) to be a generic FPS protagonist who carries and is an expert in the use of a huge arsenal of guns. Indeed, this is needed as towards the end of the game, the enemies become incredibly resilient to damage. Few of the weapons feel sufficiently 'meaty' when used (I find I can better tolerate tough enemies/weak guns if at least I sound and look cool as I blast away at them)

I remember an interview with Ken Levine where he said the whole idea of the game's AI structures evolved from three different conflicting AIs - the gatherer, who is vulnerable and collects loot. The hunter, who wants to kill the gatherer to take their loot. The protector, who is charged with protecting the gatherer from the hunter. Or, in Bioshock terms, Little Sisters, Big Daddies and GAWD DAMN SPLOICERS respectively.

Unfortunately, this interplay (heh) between the AI was very seldom seen in the game - the Big Daddies were so ludicrously powerful the AI sploicers seemed to know to keep out of their way. The potential for watching a big battle between a group of desperate sploicers and an enraged Big Daddy was therefore relegated to your own plasmid-induced hijinx. The rest of the time, everyone just wandered aimlessly around. Ho hum.

Is there any love out there for System Shock 1? Personally, I think it's a better game than the sequel - larger scale, more varied, better scripting and consistent right to the end.

SS2 walloped it in terms of atmosphere, mainly thanks to the excellent use of audio, and of course had the excellent plot twist, but SS1 is the game I find myself cajoling whatever my current desktop is into playing every four years or so. It's a crusty nugget of pure gold, on a par with Super Metroid in my mind.

I agree that the world and story of Bioshock are brilliant, as is the graphical design. That's one of the reasons I hate it so much. Because the game is utter cack.

See I'm not really a FPS player. I ragged on HL2 a bit when it came out as being 'just another FPS' but it's telling that rarely during HL2 was I ever bored. There was always a new mechanic or weapon or enemy just around the corner. It never really, truly gripped but it never bored me.

Bioshock was stunningly brilliant for the first hours. I was in awe. Greatest shooter ever. Collecting different weapons, encountering different types of splicers one at a time, exploring the world. But then it's exactly the same all the way through. There's no new enemies after the first few hours. There's maybe one new weapon after that and non after the halfway point. It's the same fights, over and over again. And the searching FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THE SEARCHING. Not one FUCKING reviewer picked up on the fact that you spend half the FUCKING game clicking and waiting for your character to search crates or bodies. Yes, System Shock 2 did this but there were half as many and it was instant. And of course, you had to search absolutely everywhere if you wanted the entire back story via the recordings. Oh and there's a Plasmid which allows you to search everything twice. FUCK OFF.

Levine made an interesting point in an interview about how there were 3 narratives: your basic find and kill bad guy, the twist and the stuff related to that, and then the background of the world via the tapes. He pointed out that you could therefore play it how you wanted: action gamers could charge through guns blazing and get a basic story, while more thoughtful people could explore everywhere and see the big picture. Problem is, the people wanting the full story are going to be, in general, different to your action gamers. But to get the full story means doing every optional repetitive fight in the gawd-damn game.

And then the twist. Stunning. Brilliant. A clever meta-commentary on the tropes of the genre itself. Followed by another 4 hours of mindless shooting, which you feel compelled to play through in case they manage something that clever again. Oh look, Lightening 3. Does 3x as much damage. Handy, since now the splicers in this area have 3x the hit points. Lets go search some crates.

The 'game' is utter shit. The story is brilliant. But this is worse than MGS4 because MGS4 just gives you 'not much of a game', whereas in Bioshock I basically felt like I was fighting through the action just to get to the next story bit. It became an endurance test towards the end. I did not enjoy it one jot, but I didn't want to stop playing as I wanted to know what happened.

An aisde: If the word "meta" is used at any point during the review process THEN I WILL STAB YOU.


Not that I'm claiming to be an excellent, wordy person. But Just Say No to "meta", kids.

But is it post-bollocks?

I'd agree it's overused, but like all overused words, sometimes it's the right one for the job. And avoiding using the right word just because some people use it all the time in the wrong way is letting the idiots win.

I'll have you know my emotional capacity spans the whole range from contempt to petulance.

"Meta" isn't a word, it's a prefix. (well, there is a word but its usage is incredibly obscure)

This is getting a bit metameta.

If the internet doesn't stop getting language wrong I'm just going to have to confiscate it.

Language or the internet? Either way I think you'd be justified.

Hmm... this would make Atlas' first name Luke.

Luke Atlas. Now that's a fine name.

Surely his name is Atlas Mulligan Seamus Patrick O'Houlihan.

A friend lent me Bioshock and I spent a bit of time playing it this weekend, I'd previoulsy tried the demo and didn't really like it.

So far it seems really very good, I am enjoying it a lot. It looks great, and is pretty atmospheric. The searching gets a bit annoying, but because I feel so compelled to do it I always seem to have quite a lot of ammo and money. It's not particularly hard so far, which is good for me as I'm not that hot at FPSs. The vita-chambers do seem to encourage a cavalier style 'rush in and bash things' sort of play from me, though.

I'm in 'Fort Frolic' and am really keen to get home tonight so I can play it some more. Although looking at your posts it seems that it might be downhill from here

But still, I'm enjoying it, and hope to carry on doing so.

I too came to the game late, only finishing it a couple of months ago over the course of a couple of weeks. It's a weird one. I found it to be fun for a bit, then it'd get really tedious for a while and I'd have to shelf it for a week. I repeated this process until I eventually got to the end. It was an odd mix of 'I'm having fun, this is good' and 'oh Jesus Christ, do I really have to do that? Urgh, another Big Daddy? A boss? Urgh' in equal measure. Definitely a solid shooter, definitely not worthy of the spunky praise and 10/10s.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing was repetition. I completed the full game more or less with the lightning plasmid and machine gun combo. I actually had to force myself into mixing it up with weapons and plasmids just to stave off the boredom rather than for a tactical advantage. This was a massive shame, the fact that 90% of the combat stuff and RPG elements were essentially redundant filler.

But yeah, still a good shooter, decent plot, it just dragged on for too long courtesy of repetitive filler and tedious fetching tasks.

Oh, and fuck Pipe Dreams - particularly the really small grid hard difficulty ones that nine times out of ten are impossible because you can't actually find a relevant bit of randomly hidden pipe in the minuscule amount of time you're given.

Hmm, good point. I only really use lightning + run up close and shotty to face, or set them on fire from a distance if I'm feeling lazy. I might have to mix it up a bit too, maybe try some enrage hijinks. I very rarely bother with the special ammo, and don't think I've used the chemical thrower either.

Once I got the "wrench can freeze enemies" power-up/tonic/whatever I just pummelled people with that over and over then blasted them with the machine gun once they froze.

I'm playing the original Bioshock through again, albeit the Bioshock Remastered edition which appeared for free at some point in my Steam catalogue. (I think if you ever bought the original game on Steam (which I did), you get Remastered for free.)

The release of Remastered didn't seem to be very well received in reviews, by all accounts not bringing much new to the table. However, what it does mean is it all works nicely on a modern PC without issues or glitches, with native 4K support and a few graphics options that weren't there before, it runs maxed out on my PC at 4K/60FPS without anything breaking a sweat.

Graphics wise the game still holds up IMO, I'd expected it to look pretty janky by modern standards but honestly, it still looks fine, although one could argue that's down to the art direction as much as anything else - this always was a beautiful game.

I'm quite fed up with the way a lot of 'Triple Ayyyyyyy' (said in Jim Sterling voice) games have gone, big open worlds, live services, icons all over the map, daily and weekly goals, staggered content releases, cynical design, microtransactions, DLCs and all the other twaddle to encourage MAXIMUM ENGAGEMENT.

It's nice to just play a game that's entirely self-contained and happy to have a start, middle and end. And let's face it, Rapture is one of the best game worlds ever.

Is there more ammo?

I packed in playing it because I couldn't find any.

Infinite was incredible though, I played that all the way through. Wish they would release a new one.