Bioshock 2

[Fragony]

Sad to say that despite it's obvious the game didn't pull me in, soooo tragic, finally a game really worth playing and then it doesn't grab me

[naut]

I hope it is harder than the original. Less linear than the original. And well. I hope it isn't as average as the last one. I mean Bioshock was good, shallow but good. If it can be closer to something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R then we'll have a good game on our hands.

But, I doubt it so I'd skip this game if you are hoping to ge it on the PC. If this is anything other than a lazy console game I'll be very impressed.

[Meneldil]

Bioshock blows STALKER out of the water on any single level. And I like STALKER.

Bioshock is just a few centuries ahead, even though yes, it is a completely linear game. But that's what you play FPS for. If I want non linear games, I play...well, I play... Okay, actually, non linear games don't exist anymore anyway.

[TinCow]

Bioshock blows STALKER out of the water on any single level. And I like STALKER.

I prefer STALKER to Bioshock. STALKER has good replayability, Bioshock has none IMHO. Both are good and worth buying, but I'm looking forward to the next STALKER game far more than Bioshock 2.

[naut]

Bioshock blows STALKER out of the water on any single level.

Where?

Originality. On par.
Atmosphere. No, about par there.
Graphics. Yes, obviously.
Storyline. On par.
Interface. On par, they both have their intricacies and annoyances.
Level design. No.

For me STALKER is awesome. For it's ridiculousness and its flaws that are a symptom of pushing the limits. Bioshock is a little, safe for my tastes. But, each to their own.

If Bioshock 2 is an improvement and a fresh view of the game then yes it'll be awesome.

[Meneldil]

Where?

There:

Here's how I see it. Bioshock is more of an interactive movie. STALKER is more of what a game should be. Both are fun, but Bioshock does not do much for me, especially after playing System Shock 2.

STALKER tried to emulate the good old "fight for your life in a hostile environment" type of game (that is saddly extinct nowadays). And IMO, it failed quite hard. It promised to offer much, and in the end it really brought nothing new or extraordinary (I can remember the first previews which gathered quite a lot of enthousiasm, which later on disappeared as features were being taken out of the game). Most of the survival features are actually annoying as hell or seem out of place in a FPS.

Bioshock on the other hand just promised to offer a very classical FPS (though with its own little gameplay mecanics) in a supa-dupa awesome setting. And that it did. Very similar to Medal of Honor or Call of Duty in their time.

My grip probably comes from the fact that I hated STALKER when it was released and finished it after having played through Bioshock twice, but meh. I definitely can see how STALKER could have been the best game in the world but I think it somehow failed in the end.

[Fragony]

STALKER is a bit rough around the edges, but you can't beat that open world feel, and I find the nuclear wasteland a much more fascinating place then Rapture. It can be a bit frustrating at times and things don't always go as they should, but I still think it's one of the best games in years. Bioshock is so 'not quite', I got bored very fast.

[Beskar]

I remember the previews of Stalker of where it had multiplayer co-op, etc and how it originally "played itself" and you was simply a stalker who played along in the world and eventually, the game will reach certain points in roughly certain times after the npc's have done things themselves.

The whole idea was interesting and when it had these previews, I was really wanting this game. Then they suddenly decided to cut the vast majority of everything out. When that happened, I dropped Stalker instantly and since then, in a way, I unconsciously avoided Stalker.

[naut]

Bioshock on the other hand just promised to offer a very classical FPS (though with its own little gameplay mecanics) in a supa-dupa awesome setting.

Bollocks.

Bioshock offered to "revolutionise" the FPS genre. And well didn't. They said everything would be interactive, everything would be modifiable. And well it isn't. Why on earth did they hire a ten man team to make water-effects. Water-effects FFS! It would have been better if they had put those ten people to work on stuff that actually affects the gameplay.

Argh. This explains better than I ever could.

STALKER is a bit rough around the edges, but you can't beat that open world feel, and I find the nuclear wasteland a much more fascinating place then Rapture. It can be a bit frustrating at times and things don't always go as they should, but I still think it's one of the best games in years. Bioshock is so 'not quite', I got bored very fast.

Exactly. There is one part at Army Warehouses, with the bloodsucker village that you can explore. Much more interesting than being forced down a series of corridors in Rapture.

Don't get me wrong, I like Bioshock. It's just it is over-rated.

Edit Added emphasis.

[TinCow]

Bioshock is an excellent corridor shooter. Possibly one of the best corridor shooters. But it's still a corridor shooter. 1998 called. It wants its gameplay back.

[CrossLOPER]

TSTALKER tried to emulate the good old "fight for your life in a hostile environment" type of game (that is saddly extinct nowadays). And IMO, it failed quite hard.

It gave a challenging, unique gameplay experience where the player wasn't really that significant. NPCs acknowledged him, but they didn't really worship him. The player was pointed in a certain direction without really knowing what he was getting into and their character's motivations were entirely left to their inclinations. THAT is how games should be.

Bioshock on the other hand just promised to offer a very classical FPS (though with its own little gameplay mecanics) in a supa-dupa awesome setting. And that it did. Very similar to Medal of Honor or Call of Duty in their time.

IT FREAKING PROMISED TO BE SYSTEM SHOCK 3.

[Kekvit Irae]

So far, Bioshock 2 is pretty much the same as the original, but with more enhancements. This is a good thing, unlike what happened with Mass Effect 2.

Playing a Big Daddy is pretty nice, and the new Little Sisters mechanic for harvesting ADAM is more tactical. When you take down a LS's Big Daddy, you can choose to either rescue them or harvest them (just like in the original). Only this time, when you choose to rescue them, you don't get any ADAM immediately. Instead, you put them on your shoulder, and go searching for special corpses for the LS to harvest. The Little Sister harvesting a corpse will spawn a horde of splicers, which you will need to fight to protect the girl. Once this is done, you can either choose to take her directly to the LS vents we all know and love from the original game, or gather from another corpse (and fight another horde). You'll get a smaller amount of ADAM if you choose to go directly to the vents. Once the second one is harvested, then you need to find a vent to deposit the girl in. At this point, you can once again choose to either rescue them (gaining little ADAM but you'll be rewarded just like the original game) or harvest them for the full amount she collected from the two corpses. Once again, a long-term goal oriented player will choose rescuing Little Sisters.

This gives four options as opposed to the original's two...
1. Rescue the girl and take them to the vents for little ADAM but rewards down the line.
2. Harvest the girl for moderate ADAM.
3. Rescue the girl and gather from corpses, then rescue at the vent for moderate ADAM for rewards down the line.
4. Rescue the girl and gather corpses, then harvest at the vent for maximum ADAM.

[CrossLOPER]

Bioshock blows STALKER out of the water on any single level.

Here's how I see it. Bioshock is more of an interactive movie. STALKER is more of what a game should be. Both are fun, but Bioshock does not do much for me, especially after playing System Shock 2.

[Fragony]

Bioshock blows STALKER out of the water on any single level.

I most respectfully disagree