Bioshock. Excited? Dismayed? Frumpy?

[Tydeus]

My opinion on this title?

From everything I've seen, it looks terrible (I'd suspected all along, but this (http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/6353) recent video of gameplay posted to 1up really convinced me).

Here's the concept from what I can tell -- A shooter with no ammo, exciting firefights, or large-scale battles. Sounds like fun! I mean, all innovative genre-busters must be fun, right? Oh, wait, the reason it's a genre buster is because it's not a shooter.

So, let me correct myself. I don't like most survival horror -- I get nauseous. And gassy. But, if you do, you'll probably love Bioshock. Why though, is this being advertised as an innovative FPS? It seems like any other first-person survival horror game, with maybe a little more open-ended play than most. Wooo.

People play shooters because they love all those "clichés" that Bioshock developer Irrational Games thinks are so soul-crushingly terrible. You know, clichés like not having to worry about ammo (Halo, anybody?), or big, straight-forward battles with lots of bad guys. And, god forbid, that bane of the modern gamer, that horror of horrors, whose evils cannot be sufficiently expressed, linear plotlines! Ahhhhh! Even uttering that cursed phrase strikes fear into my heart, like a cold dagger of unimaginative drivel.

Nevermind that written works from The Iliad to Shakespeare to Kavalier and Clay have been told linearly, along with some of the greatest movies of all time, from the Godfather to Rushmore -- linear plots are evil!

Seems like more of the same-old-bullshit the game industry has been trying to push down our throats for the past 2 or 3 years. Thanks, but I'll take my Halo 3 now, thank you.

What's your take on it?

[Monkeybonk]

People play shooters because they love all those "clichés" that Bioshock developer Irrational Games thinks are so soul-crushingly terrible. You know, clichés like not having to worry about ammo (Halo, anybody?), or big, straight-forward battles with lots of bad guys. And, god forbid, that bane of the modern gamer, that horror of horrors, whose evils cannot be sufficiently expressed, linear plotlines! Ahhhhh! Even uttering that cursed phrase strikes fear into my heart, like a cold dagger of unimaginative drivel.

I once had a mouse. I put the mouse in a 10 gallon aquarium and filled it with sawdust.

I put a wheel in there.

Every day, for hours on end, that mouse would climb on his little wheel and run. He never went anywhere new, but he THOUGHT he was going somewhere. The reason being, his little mind just didn't process the thought of the rotating wheel keeping pace with his running. The mouse only knew his cage and his wheel, and even the concept of the wheel was beyond him.

Do they make wheels for humans who think they're going somewhere new? No, we have treadmills for working out, but even someone mentally disabled wouldn't be convinced they were going anywhere 'new' after walking around on a treadmill.


Halo games are like digital mousewheels.

[Sporticus]

My opinion on this title?

From everything I've seen, it looks terrible (I'd suspected all along, but this (http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/6353) recent video of gameplay posted to 1up really convinced me).

Here's the concept from what I can tell -- A shooter with no ammo, exciting firefights, or large-scale battles. Sounds like fun! I mean, all innovative genre-busters must be fun, right? Oh, wait, the reason it's a genre buster is because it's not a shooter.

So, let me correct myself. I don't like most survival horror -- I get nauseous. And gassy. But, if you do, you'll probably love Bioshock. Why though, is this being advertised as an innovative FPS? It seems like any other first-person survival horror game, with maybe a little more open-ended play than most. Wooo.

People play shooters because they love all those "clichés" that Bioshock developer Irrational Games thinks are so soul-crushingly terrible. You know, clichés like not having to worry about ammo (Halo, anybody?), or big, straight-forward battles with lots of bad guys. And, god forbid, that bane of the modern gamer, that horror of horrors, whose evils cannot be sufficiently expressed, linear plotlines! Ahhhhh! Even uttering that cursed phrase strikes fear into my heart, like a cold dagger of unimaginative drivel.

Nevermind that written works from The Iliad to Shakespeare to Kavalier and Clay have been told linearly, along with some of the greatest movies of all time, from the Godfather to Rushmore -- linear plots are evil!

Seems like more of the same-old-bullshit the game industry has been trying to push down our throats for the past 2 or 3 years. Thanks, but I'll take my Halo 3 now, thank you.

What's your take on it?

My take is that you don't have to play the game.

Don't make threads to say "omg I don't like ______". You have made no points. All you've said is that you don't like it.

[Chipper173]

I'm completely stoked for this game. It's probably my most anticipated title right now.

It just combines a lot of stuff that I love about games. Customization, gobs of atmosphere, interesting story without getting stupid, first-person perspective without feeling like I need to shoot a hole in everything, although that's an option...

It's like they read my mind and made my dream game.

[ZERO.]

I think i'll rent this game to check it out.

If it's up to snuff then i'm going to buy it.

[PyrosNine]

I'm rather interested in this game, because I kinda like the whole "explore" thing. It lets me travel at my own pace, solve problems my own way, and makes the world quite immersive.

And also, any game where I"m not some supersoldier character, or whatever, and free to shape things as I choose makes game moments much more memorable.

Also, i get the chance to get a guy who looks kinda like Scuba diver villain from classic Scooby Doo to protect me like a little sister.

[Random Ninja]

Dude, it's not a survival horror or an FPS. It's a buddy-picture. Duh. The love between a small child and her gore soaked robot pal.

But anyways, I think I'd play it purely for the chance to be a drill weilding robot. Is that possible? I don't know, but if it is, I wanna be one.

[ZERO.]

I saw some in game video where the main character got some plasmids and was able to summon a swarm of bees.

I want that!

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

There are a LOT of FPS' coming out soon and this was one I didn't particularly think much of. I still don't. It seems to me it's trying too hard to be different, to stand out from the overwhelming crowd of FPS'. It looks like it's trying to be the new Half-life, but I don't think it will succeed.

I'll stick with Prey and get Cell Factor when it comes out.

[Lockeownzj00]

People play shooters because they love all those "clichés" that Bioshock developer Irrational Games thinks are so soul-crushingly terrible.

So, have you ever played System Shock 1/2, or any of the spiritual predecessors to this game?

I don't think they're marketing it as a breakneck FPS. It's in first person. So? It could be a first-person adventure. Or maybe, a first-person RPG. Or, gasp, a fusion of both! And maybe some shooting elements too!

How dare they not include a BFG.

It's a successor to one of the greatest FPS/RPGs of all time, so I'm stoked.


Don't make threads to say "omg I don't like ______". You have made no points. All you've said is that you don't like it.

Are we supposed to make only positive threads regarding games? I don't question the legitimacy of the thread myself, I question his opinion.

It seems to me it's trying too hard to be different, to stand out from the overwhelming crowd of FPS'. It looks like it's trying to be the new Half-life, but I don't think it will succeed.

Really, I just want to know what aspect made you think this. I see nothing in the videos that screams cheap, trite, or superficial in any way. I see nothing that seems like a random smattering of ideas that will probably fail because they were never tested.

I also don't think it's trying to be "the new Half-life." Quit defining games solely by their peers. It seems to me like it's trying to tell a story.

[Flarecobra]

I'm seeing this as more of an interactive movie myself...sorta like those "Choose your own Adventures" books we all read (or are reading) when we were younger.

[Azisien]

I must say, I found that video very disturbing. The premise doesn't interest me very much. Tactical strategies are great and all, but I would prefer a nuclear-ravaged survival horror shooter based on the real world to this weird underwater 1940s world.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Really, I just want to know what aspect made you think this. I see nothing in the videos that screams cheap, trite, or superficial in any way. I see nothing that seems like a random smattering of ideas that will probably fail because they were never tested.

I also don't think it's trying to be "the new Half-life." Quit defining games solely by their peers. It seems to me like it's trying to tell a story.

I never said anything seemed cheap, trite or superficial, or that there were any "random ideas that would fail because they were never tested". I was simply pointing out the fact that, as far as I can see, this game is trying to be different from other FPS', to "break the mould" as it were, in a way that kind of reminded me of what half life did years ago for the genre. That game also told story and introduced new ideas which had never been done before, in the same way this appears to be doing. This whole idea of manipulating the AI to work in your favour and just the way the game mechanics as a whole seem to work is evidence of this. It IS trying to be different, in the same way half life WAS, which was my whole point. But that in itself is where the problem lies with me. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it's there and it bothers me. Maybe it's just the lack of that elusive "X-factor", that the game needs but just can't seem to manage.

But hey that's just my opinion, I have no doubt it will sell (some of the worst games ever sold well), but I don't think it'll be worth my hard earned.

[Random Ninja]

...dude, I like how you bad mouthed this game, but were all for Prey...which definately was Half-Life Lite.

[It Goes Very Fast]

I like the dark retro-futuristic setting they decided to use. It reminds me of Fallout quite a bit.

[Tydeus]

How was Prey, by the way? I have me a 360, and I need a shooter to hold me over until Halo 3. Yeah, Gears of War will probably be awesome (It better be, goddamnit), but, fundamentally, it's not an FPS. It's a different experience, good in its own right (again, hopefully), but there's something about an FPS that I just need. Oh, and don't say CoD2, because I am fed up with that game.

Also, as to Bioshock -- it seems like there's freedom (a key element in any game) but hardly any control (another key element, in my opinion even more important than freedom).

I mean, to me, anyway, freedom and control are the two of the biggest reasons I play video games -- you know, the whole thing of "I could never do this in the real world."

Control is something video games have always had in some measure. Freedom has been slower to arrive -- and I think that's because a little freedom goes a long way, but control, well, you need a lot, or you get frustrated. Dead Rising, perfect example. The boss fights are, the first time around, excruciating. Why? Because you spend 3/4 of the time on your back, knocked down, unable to do anything. And that sucks. I don't mind taking damage, but let me fight back!

Really, control -- in the context of a game -- is just a specific kind of freedom. The freedom to be able to take advantage of all the options of a game, whenever you want to. That is, within the limitations of the game (which you've accepted, as a buyer), you want to be able to do whatever you want to. To play a game that has shooting, and not be able to shoot whenever you want to, is, in effect, an infringement upon that freedom, which we call control.

What is referred to as "freedom" typically is the expansion of the inherent limitations of a game, those limitations you implicitly accept when buying.

Also, control often applies -- again, within the context of gaming -- to freedoms which we consider standard, or nearly so. Freedoms which we are used to, at the least.

Bioshock looks irritating to me because of several things. (1) Very little ammo. In the demo, they were almost bragging about this. Yeah, sure, more realistic. Sure, forces you to be careful. Also makes you tense, regret every used bullet, and infringes upon your control. I bought a game that was advertised as an FPS; I want to shoot crap.

(2) The enemies are few and far between. Again, I buy a game with a big element of shooting. I want to shoot stuff. I can't shoot stuff if there are no enemies. Walking around trying to figure out what to do next isn't that much fun. The puzzle-type elements better be frequent, and broken into small, discrete chunks, Ocarina-of-time style. Otherwise, you'll be spending a lot of time running around, getting frustrated. From what I've seen and read, Bioshock doesn't look to have this structure, which makes sense, 'cause it's an FPS, not a puzzle-adventure game.

(3) Lots of the enemies, when they show up, come out suddenly, horror-style, probably resulting in unavoidable hits (a breach of control). Also, the splicers, at least, jump all over the place, darting back and forth. With controls and aiming that seemed sluggish in the demo, this means they'll be irritatingly hard to hit, and they'll be darting into hit you before you can react.

(4) The ones that don't, like the drill-wielding guys, or the Big Daddies, can take a lot of hits, and probably don't slow down when you hit 'em, meaning more enemies who are going to be very hard to control.

Compare this to the Elites of Halo -- once you get their shields down, when you hit them, they get stunned. Your reaction inhibits theirs, and you are never stunned yourself. Makes it easier for you, might not be super-realistic, but it means you are in control, both of your own actions, and theirs. Hunters don't get stunned, but you certainly can dodge them. Again, you're never forced to take damage -- you never feel that a situation is without hope. If you want to do something, you can. You never feel out of control. That's excellent design, in my opinion.

On the plus side, Bioshock offers a lot of customization, and customizaton means control. Excellent. Open environments, well, hmmm...

Now we get into positive and negative freedoms. That is, freedom to, vs. freedom from. Most constitutional freedoms are negative, most game freedoms are positive.

Open environments offer freedom to roam, and choose your path. However, they open you up to the possibilities of getting lost, roaming into places you don't want to be, if you don't want to be killed, anyway. WoW sometimes has this problem -- you might pass by a quest location five times without seeing it (if you're like me, anyway).

Halo 1, in my opinion, hit the perfect balance. It was explicitly segmented into rooms. Each room was like a multiplayer map: open, with any number of solutions. The only direction was "kill the bad guys." In short, very free. However, each room (which were sometimes canyons or caves, so I don't mean that literally) had only one exit, and ususally only one entry, and almost never more than 2. So, you never really got lost, turned around, and you just didn't have to worry about navigation, basically.

Bioshock looks like it has too much of a good thing, in the realm of positive freedom. Negative freedoms usually require a corresponding infringement upon positive freedoms. Bioshock looks a little too open. Direction can be a good thing.

Anyway, Bioshock looks very innovative, very different, but not very fun, not much control. Frustration looks like the big problem here, and that kills any game for me.

[Azisien]

Halo 1, in my opinion, hit the perfect balance. It was explicitly segmented into rooms. Each room was like a multiplayer map: open, with any number of solutions. The only direction was "kill the bad guys." In short, very free. However, each room (which were sometimes canyons or caves, so I don't mean that literally) had only one exit, and ususally only one entry, and almost never more than 2. So, you never really got lost, turned around, and you just didn't have to worry about navigation, basically.

Yeargh, see, I found the first Halo to be a horribly streamlined shooter, to the post that I was only finishing the last few levels of the game just to say I did, and not because I was having fun.

Compare that to something like Far Cry. It had its problems (always found the gfx settings hard to compete with to get really smooth play like in Halo, COD, it has NO story to speak of), but it was a great example of very open environments (often kilometer scale) with tons of ways to complete objectives.

Sure, you could get lost, but I WANT to care about navigation in a game. What I can get tired of is "You must do exactly X in exactly Y/Z ways to complete our challenge." Bioshock, I don't know, it's difficult to say. I do like the ability to just run in and start blasting away, but did they explicitly say you couldn't do that? I saw them advertising the fact that you didn't have to, not say you absolutely COULDN'T. And in my experience, given enough skill, you can do it even if they say you can't. :p

What I might not like about Bioshock is the setting or premise. Didn't click with me, but that's just preference.

[Chipper173]

Drusus, I kind of feel like the level of control over yourself and your surroundings is supposed to be denied for the sake of atmosphere. For example: the power-ups that give you cool powers (like super-speed or bullet time). Sure, you can mix and match, which is cool. But the point of the game is that these things work like a drug; meaning they fundimentally alter your body for the sake of the power, and after a while you need them to survive. The reason behind this is so that the game gives you the option of sacrificing your humanity in order to increase your chances of survival, and making moral decisions like whether or not to shoot the little girls that carry the stuff you need.

Likewise with the setting. The game takes place in an underwater city. After a war over control of the power-ups, the place is pretty much busted. You can see cracks in the glass casing, where the water is leaking in. It's meant to give you a sense of clausterphobia (there's no way I spelled that right), like the ocean is closing in.

So, the lack of control on the part of the player is meant to add to the game's overall tension and scare tactics.

[Astral Harmony]

It's very interesting and I'll definitely get it myself.

I personally would call this an FPS. Does every weapon in your arsenal have to be a gun still? One of the main areas where FPS's try to be innovative is in your choice of weapons or tactical options. Back in the good ol' days, sure, everything was pistols, shotguns, miniguns, rifles, and rocket launchers and you simply just had to mow down hundreds, perhaps thousands of horrible monsters with a sickening fetish for wanting to rip off your flesh and don themselves in it, and this was good. The genre is changing, now. Well, expanding is more like it. For those who like those kinds of FPS's (raises hand), I'm sure they're still being made, and will continue to be made long after your dying day.

If it's one thing that interests me about this game, it's not only your choice of options, but that it may be forced on you to choose options other than using your trusty firearm. Initially frustrating, but it adds to my overall enjoyment for reasons I'm still trying to figure out. It's like the game is flat out telling me "Hey, your gun isn't going to get you far on its own. C'mon, think from now on, man! There's always more ways through this."

[It Goes Very Fast]

If you want to get a feeling of what Bioshock will be like, play System Shock 2. It's a first-person, sci-fi/horror/adventure game where scarcity is a major theme and the key to your survival lies in using your limited resources wisely.

If you want to kill endless hordes of monsters with miniguns and rocket launchers, play Serious Sam 2.

[Tydeus]

Yeargh, see, I found the first Halo to be a horribly streamlined shooter, to the post that I was only finishing the last few levels of the game just to say I did, and not because I was having fun...What I can get tired of is "You must do exactly X in exactly Y/Z ways to complete our challenge."

Well, of course preference always intrudes into these things. However, I think one reason Halo was so widely loved, and how I managed to squeez ~500 hours out of co-op, was for the reasons I described.

And, like I said, I don't think it was "Do exactly X in exactly Y/Z ways." I mean, my mom's boyfriend and I played through that game dozens of different ways. Like I said, there was some streamlining from area to area, but within each area, you could branch out.

Now, bigger areas with more baddies would've meant more options, and that would've been nice, but it was, after all, Xbox 1. I think if Halo 3 goes the campaign route of Halo 1 (as opposed to the horribly streamlined campaign of Halo 2, which I got maybe 40 hours out of), you might see the possibilities, because each room -- area, segment, whatever -- will be so much bigger, and therefore it will seem more open, but, again, without getting you lost, and providing good, plot-based direction.

Oh, and I'm guessing you despised CoD 2 -- right? I mean, talk about streamlined! It was like you weren't even playing the game! Move to that cover. Now crouch. Wait. Shoot. Wait. Shoot. Wait. Shoot. Move to the next cover (and there's only one piece of cover that you can actually use, of course!). Crouch. Wait. Shoot. Repeat ad nauseum.

[Tydeus]

Drusus, I kind of feel like the level of control over yourself and your surroundings is supposed to be denied for the sake of atmosphere...So, the lack of control on the part of the player is meant to add to the game's overall tension and scare tactics.

Well, if you can stand that, then OK. Again, I think the emphasis on atmosphere seperates this from FPSes, and they should have built it from the ground-up as horror.

I mean, atmosphere is nice, but it's only one (relatively small) part of the game. To me, gameplay is paramount. Is the combat fun? That's the most important question I ask myself when playing a rental, or a demo, when I'm considering whether or not to buy.

Because, after all, gameplay is the meat of the game. You don't sell games on atmosphere (again, with the possible exception of survival-horror, but even then you still need good gameplay, and good gameplay gets you noticed. Look at RE4, after all, and how much praise it got for more focus on good gameplay). I might rent Bioshock, and marvel at the wonderful atmosphere for 2 hours, then get bored and take it back.

That's what I should have done with CoD 2 (another game with great atmosphere and piss-poor gameplay). Instead, seeing so many 9.0 ratings, and knowing it had multiplayer, I bought it. BIG mistake.

Atmosphere certainly is nice, and certainly makes a game more immersive. Now, I don't know about you, but, atmosphere still isn't enough for me to shell out $60. I want to get my money's worth.

[Azisien]

Now, bigger areas with more baddies would've meant more options, and that would've been nice, but it was, after all, Xbox 1. I think if Halo 3 goes the campaign route of Halo 1 (as opposed to the horribly streamlined campaign of Halo 2, which I got maybe 40 hours out of), you might see the possibilities, because each room -- area, segment, whatever -- will be so much bigger, and therefore it will seem more open, but, again, without getting you lost, and providing good, plot-based direction.

Yes, as an avid COD fan, it pains me to admit I really didn't enjoy COD 2.

I personally think the reason Halo 1 was such a good game was because it was the only shooter that stood above the rest in the console arena and was a great one to play co-op or with friends. I found all of my "halo" fans much less impressed with Halo 2, but I liked it WAY more (more for the story than the gameplay, and there are exceptions there too). I suppose I like swimming upstream or something.

Anyway, that about sums it up.

[Lockeownzj00]

I bought a game that was advertised as an FPS; I want to shoot crap.

Therein lies the flaw of pretty much all your arguments. It's not being advertised as Serious Sam 3 by any means. I don't know why you would expect BFGs.

Pretty much all your "issues" involve making the game easier. I know there's a breaking point, but what do you expect? How do you deal with challenges? "Enemies come out of nowhere! They're hard to kill!" It's being made by some brilliant people; I have a feeling you'll cope. You're not talking about control at all. You're talking about the extent to which you get your ass kicked.

[BitVyper]

Damn, this game looks really sweet. Is it coming out on some non-360 platform?

[Chipper173]

PC and possibly PS3, last I heard.

[Magus]

This game is more along the lines of Clive Barker's Undying with a lot of RPG elements and puzzles than say Halo. It isn't really breaking as much new ground as you would think, this kind've game has existed. Maybe that was your point, that they're acting like they're breaking new ground and aren't (always an obvious thing with most game developers. OMFG IT IS TEH MOST INNOVATIVE GAME OF TEH PAST TWENTY YEARS, etc).

Also, the basic plot is you enter this underwater utopic city...only to find out the denizens became so obsessed with prolonging their lives they lost all semblance of humanity. Enter disturbing human machine-meld enemies! There was also a civil war involved.

Oh, and the one major gimmick is that there are these small children called Collectors or some crap like that, guarded by these giant guardian fellows (those sea diver guys), and you can kill these children, IF YOU DARE RISK THE EMOTIONAL SCARRING! *DUN DUN DUN* Oh, wait, it's a video game and we don't care. Give me my massive amounts of biofluid-stuff for killing the virtual children, please.

So, yeah, I think the challenge will lie with properly fighting the guardians, not whether or not we can take the lives of innocent virtual children. Really, I think it's just a bad trend to allow you to kill children in the first place in a video game, but if I ever play this I ain't gonna hold back when you get all sorts of goodies for doing it!

Anyway, customizing your character with all kinds of psychic abilities and mechanical parts can't be a BAD thing.

[ZERO.]

Oh, and the one major gimmick is that there are these small children called Collectors or some crap like that, guarded by these giant guardian fellows (those sea diver guys), and you can kill these children, IF YOU DARE RISK THE EMOTIONAL SCARRING! *DUN DUN DUN* Oh, wait, it's a video game and we don't care. Give me my massive amounts of biofluid-stuff for killing the virtual children, please.

So, yeah, I think the challenge will lie with properly fighting the guardians, not whether or not we can take the lives of innocent virtual children. Really, I think it's just a bad trend to allow you to kill children in the first place in a video game, but if I ever play this I ain't gonna hold back when you get all sorts of goodies for doing it!

Anyway, customizing your character with all kinds of psychic abilities and mechanical parts can't be a BAD thing.

You know for some reason I feel bad for killing virtutal characters.

I know it's a game and everything, but I can't help but think of their little virtural wife and virtural kids.

I usually can't bring my self to do it..

I get over it soon enough with bloody savage results, but thats usually when I play the second time and my moral fiber has gone out the window.

You know first time playing is my side with the respect for life and what not, even if it's just a game.

The second time its that side that does not give a flying fuck weither some character dies.

I need to get me some bad ass powers to make my foes crap their pants in terror.

[sabredenton]

System Shock 2 is one of the scariest games ever made, even compared to today's newer stuff, and the guy that practically wrote that game is going to be making Bioshock. I dont even have to hear anything else other than that to know it's going to be killer.

It's like when Steven Spielburg (sp probably) releases something, you know it's going to be pretty good, or when John Woo directs something, you know some ass is going to be liberally kicked in good measure.

[Monkeybonk]

Blah blah blah.

So basically you get confused and irritated when you have to use your brain, and you'd rather just eat Ritalin and play Halo clones for the rest of your life?

"OMG I HAEV 2 WACH MY AMO WUT FAGUT GAY QUER HOMO SHIT ASS IS DIS WTF WTF"
"ROFL PUZLES? PUZLS R 4 HOMOS N NERDS IM 2 H4RDKORE 2 SOLVE PUZLS"
"DIS GAEM SUX LOL ALENZ? ALIEZN WERE STOLED FRM HALO 2 TEH BESTST GAM EVR MADE LOLOL"
"WTF WERS TEH SNIPAER RIFFLES N ROCKIT LAUNCER WUT QUEER HOMO MADE DIS GAEM MY NAEM IS "LEET_SNIPER_WOLF_KILLER_GOKU_SAYAN" IN HALO 2 4 A REESUN OMG DIS GAEM SUX"

[Magus]

lol Does Halo have clones at this point? That one Goldeneye: Rogue Agent had the same energy bars, but I don't think it was very similar otherwise.

[Tydeus]

So basically you get confused and irritated when you have to use your brain, and you'd rather just eat Ritalin and play Halo clones for the rest of your life?

"OMG I HAEV 2 WACH MY AMO WUT FAGUT GAY QUER HOMO SHIT ASS IS DIS WTF WTF"
"ROFL PUZLES? PUZLS R 4 HOMOS N NERDS IM 2 H4RDKORE 2 SOLVE PUZLS"
"DIS GAEM SUX LOL ALENZ? ALIEZN WERE STOLED FRM HALO 2 TEH BESTST GAM EVR MADE LOLOL"
"WTF WERS TEH SNIPAER RIFFLES N ROCKIT LAUNCER WUT QUEER HOMO MADE DIS GAEM MY NAEM IS "LEET_SNIPER_WOLF_KILLER_GOKU_SAYAN" IN HALO 2 4 A REESUN OMG DIS GAEM SUX"

Yeah, that's a really accurate assessment of what I said. You're absolutely right -- I never gave any reasons, or in-depth explanations of what I think makes a game fun, I asserted total and complete authority over all opinions, and I got personal and used stupid insults. Yup. You sure got me; how will I sleep, knowing that such witty satirists have so effectively demolished my nigh-incomprehensible, caps-locked slurs!

So, to conclude, fuck you, buddy.

And, btw, I'm both gay, and a nerd (I play D&D and MTG on a regular basis, and I'm smart -- isn't that pretty much the definition of a nerd?), so you probably won't find me using either of those as insults...

Anyway, I like using my brain, sure. Puzzle games can be a blast -- Ocarina of Time is perhaps the single greatest game I've ever played -- but they need to let you be in control, and it tends to help if they're full-on puzzlers/platformers. Mainly because the puzzles come more frequently, and interaction with the environment is a bigger part of the game, and can both reveal clues, and offers more ways of completing/creating puzzles.

Also, it seems to me that the first-person-perspective tends not to be conducive to puzzlers. Yes, there is the Myst series, but again, those were full-on puzzlers. Given that this is being advertised first and foremost as an FPS, the puzzle element, looks, to me, like more of a frustration, and something that breaks up the action, rather than adding to the fun.

Oh, and I take Adderall, not Ritalin. Get with the times, pal.

[Kikuichimonji]

Oh, and the one major gimmick is that there are these small children called Collectors or some crap like that, guarded by these giant guardian fellows (those sea diver guys), and you can kill these children, IF YOU DARE RISK THE EMOTIONAL SCARRING! *DUN DUN DUN* Oh, wait, it's a video game and we don't care. Give me my massive amounts of biofluid-stuff for killing the virtual children, please.
There's also the fact that they're guarded by virtual tanks.

Really, the video doesn't cover the gameplay that much. It focuses too much on the atmosphere to tell, like Drusus said. Will there be sweet battles against hideous enemies? We don't know. However, I think the idea is great and I love the freedom.

[Tydeus]

Therein lies the flaw of pretty much all your arguments. It's not being advertised as Serious Sam 3 by any means. I don't know why you would expect BFGs.

Pretty much all your "issues" involve making the game easier. I know there's a breaking point, but what do you expect? How do you deal with challenges? "Enemies come out of nowhere! They're hard to kill!" It's being made by some brilliant people; I have a feeling you'll cope. You're not talking about control at all. You're talking about the extent to which you get your ass kicked.

Not true. Believe me -- I like a challenge. I don't play Halo on Easy, I play it on Legendary. However, I still feel "in control."

OK, let me explain it for you. I don't mind taking damage, I don't mind dying, so long as it's theoretically possible for me to prevent this from happening.

Dead Rising can be my specific example here -- in the bossfights, you get knocked down a lot. That is not being in control. That is frustrating. Go ahead, shoot me, make me take damage, make it hard for me to win, but don't knock me down! Don't prevent me from fighting back!

That's what worries me about Bioshock -- it looks like there will be a lot of times when you will have to take damage, no matter what you do, e.g., a character jumping out of a shadow, hitting you before you can blink, let alone react.

That, to me, is frustrating. Sure, in Halo 2, there were places were I died many, many, many times. But, I knew, if I just practiced, strategized a little more extensively, and was patient, I would be able to beat that part of the game.

So, easy is not what I ask -- in fact, a game that's super easy is no fun. However, I don't like a game where I don't control what's going on, at least in terms of my own character.

[Kikuichimonji]

Not true. Believe me -- I like a challenge. I don't play Halo on Easy, I play it on Legendary. However, I still feel "in control."Everyone with testicular organs and/or decent gaming skills plays Halo on Legendary. Because Hero is too goddamn easy! Unless you have an idiot for a partner.

OK, let me explain it for you. I don't mind taking damage, I don't mind dying, so long as it's theoretically possible for me to prevent this from happening.But that's part of the fun of the game. It's those "Oh shit that's a monster behind the door and he's got a nice row of teeth and is that my brain splattered across the wall?" moments. And there are plenty of these in Halo. For example, the Library. Is there a way to prepare for that one goddamn Flood with the goddamn rocket launcher without already knowing he's there? Sure, but it's just as likely that you won't get eaten by the hypothetical evil-thingy. The only difference is that you know about the rocket launcher, so any avoidance of it will be more 'skillful' than that of avoiding what you don't know.

That's what worries me about Bioshock -- it looks like there will be a lot of times when you will have to take damage, no matter what you do, e.g., a character jumping out of a shadow, hitting you before you can blink, let alone react.

That, to me, is frustrating. Sure, in Halo 2, there were places were I died many, many, many times. But, I knew, if I just practiced, strategized a little more extensively, and was patient, I would be able to beat that part of the game.

So, easy is not what I ask -- in fact, a game that's super easy is no fun. However, I don't like a game where I don't control what's going on, at least in terms of my own character.I have no idea where you're getting this from. Where does it show a lack of control of the character? If anything, it's one of the games that looks like it could give the most control over a character. I don't see much evidence of unavoidable traps here.

[Tydeus]

Everyone with testicular organs and/or decent gaming skills plays Halo on Legendary. Because Hero is too goddamn easy! Unless you have an idiot for a partner.

But that's part of the fun of the game. It's those "Oh shit that's a monster behind the door and he's got a nice row of teeth and is that my brain splattered across the wall?" moments. And there are plenty of these in Halo. For example, the Library. Is there a way to prepare for that one goddamn Flood with the goddamn rocket launcher without already knowing he's there? Sure, but it's just as likely that you won't get eaten by the hypothetical evil-thingy. The only difference is that you know about the rocket launcher, so any avoidance of it will be more 'skillful' than that of avoiding what you don't know.

Well, yes. However, I might point out that the Library is pretty much my least favorite level in either Halo 1 or 2. Mainy for the repitition, but surprises like that don't make it any better. And, if you haven't already, play Dead Rising, and then tell me the boss battles aren't frustrating.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. Where does it show a lack of control of the character? If anything, it's one of the games that looks like it could give the most control over a character. I don't see much evidence of unavoidable traps here.

Just the types of characters, and also the gameplay video involving the "splicer" baddies. I have a feeling that splicers and Big Daddies might both be fairly irritating monster-types. Certainly the way the demo guy avoided the Big Daddies makes it seem like they're going to be damn tough.

And, as for the customization -- hell yes. The more of that, the better. However, I think that that might get overshadowed.

But, at the end of the day, this is, of course, speculation. We really have no idea, and we just come here because it's something to do (instead of job/housework/homework). Bioshock looks bad, to me. Really, I just wanted to be a little inflammatory, and use it as a platform to talk about control/freedom in games. Of course we can't know until it comes out.

[Kikuichimonji]

Just the types of characters, and also the gameplay video involving the "splicer" baddies. I have a feeling that splicers and Big Daddies might both be fairly irritating monster-types. Certainly the way the demo guy avoided the Big Daddies makes it seem like they're going to be damn tough.But you don't have to go after them. If you avoid the Little Sisters, they're perfectly content to let you go on your merry way. If you don't want to fight against them, it seems like you won't have to in most cases.

And in the demo, he killed a splicer with two shots when he had the right ammo. It's hella harder than that to kill one of those spiny bastards in RE4. Freaking long-armed fish-floppy bastards. (Wow. I'm an angry little man recently)

But, at the end of the day, this is, of course, speculation. We really have no idea, and we just come here because it's something to do (instead of job/housework/homework). Bioshock looks bad, to me. Really, I just wanted to be a little inflammatory, and use it as a platform to talk about control/freedom in games. Of course we can't know until it comes out.Then, excuse my bluntness, why are we still having this conversation? I mean, there's not even any logical way to evaluate it without more on the game.

[Tydeus]

Then, excuse my bluntness, why are we still having this conversation? I mean, there's not even any logical way to evaluate it without more on the game.

Well, yeah, that's kind of what I was driving at.

[Lockeownzj00]

That, to me, is frustrating. Sure, in Halo 2, there were places were I died many, many, many times. But, I knew, if I just practiced, strategized a little more extensively, and was patient, I would be able to beat that part of the game.


Okay then, you "don't" want easy. You want predictable, and linear. Something you can plan out. Which, I think, is by definition easy.

Then, excuse my bluntness, why are we still having this conversation? I mean, there's not even any logical way to evaluate it without more on the game.

I say we keep speculating instead of falling back on 'it's just my opinion and we can't know' as an escape to a tenuous argument.

Any game that implements this complex AI is bound to have those 'lightbulb' moments--you realize, [i]oh wait, I can just make the Big Daddy go here, attack this pipe, do this, and avoid that battle entirely![/ i] or something like that. It seems like you'll have the latitude to do that.

Also: FPS/RPGs with body mods==BEST.

[Tydeus]

Okay then, you "don't" want easy. You want predictable, and linear. Something you can plan out. Which, I think, is by definition easy.

Why is everyone on my case for not liking games that are frustratingly difficult? Is that some inexcusable crime that darkens my soul -- indeed, the whole planet?

I don't mean "repeat until I've memorized every last enemy move and can beat this section."

I mean "Hone my skills until I can beat this section." There are linear, predictable parts of games that I would not call easy.

Call of Duty 2, for example. Horrendously linear, stupefyingly rehearsed, should, therefore, be "easy." Huh. Funny, because, Veteran mode is a fucking bitch. It's not even fun to play (Yes, I have 940 Achievement points from it, but only because I'm OCD). You couldn't ask for more linear, predictable gameplay, but it's still hard as hell.