Bioshock. Excited? Dismayed? Frumpy? - Page 2

Flarecobra · 10-06-2006, 02:26 PM

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 · 10-06-2006, 03:33 PM

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 · 10-06-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

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 · 10-06-2006, 07:05 PM

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

It Goes Very Fast · 10-06-2006, 08:01 PM

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

Tydeus · 10-06-2006, 11:48 PM

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 · 10-07-2006, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drusus

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 · 10-07-2006, 08:02 AM

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 · 10-07-2006, 09:05 AM

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 · 10-07-2006, 11:11 AM

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.

10-06-2006, 02:26 PM	#11
Flarecobra Burn. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Classified Posts: 11,017	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. __________________ "Only the fool wishes to go into battle to beat someone for the satisfaction of beating someone." -A Thousand Sons Rules. Read them, know them, love them.

10-06-2006, 07:05 PM	#14
Random Ninja Canada's Secret Weapon. Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 278	...dude, I like how you bad mouthed this game, but were all for Prey...which definately was Half-Life Lite. __________________ :rmage: :You know, the last time we screwed with Canada, they burned down the White House (circa 1812AD, Planet Earth). Ever since then, they've been sitting up there...waiting... Waiting for us to let down our guard...I wouldn't be caught dead saying anything bad about those brave, handsome psychopathic pyros up in the Great White North. Not when we're 0 for 1.

10-06-2006, 11:48 PM	#16
Tydeus Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: L.A. Sprawl Posts: 589	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. Last edited by Tydeus; 10-06-2006 at 11:51 PM.

10-07-2006, 09:05 AM	#19
Astral Harmony Don't Hate Me 'Cause I'm Moe Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Harmonial Sanctum Posts: 6,798	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." Last edited by Astral Harmony; 10-07-2006 at 09:11 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2006, 03:33 PM	#12
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	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.

10-06-2006, 08:01 PM	#15
It Goes Very Fast Goomba Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3	I like the dark retro-futuristic setting they decided to use. It reminds me of Fallout quite a bit.

10-07-2006, 08:02 AM	#18
Chipper173 Grandma threw away my animes Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hang a left at the deli. Posts: 858	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.

10-07-2006, 11:11 AM	#20
It Goes Very Fast Goomba Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3	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.