Bioshock - overrated ?

[Saloma Teale]

I'm about 4 hours in playing on the Hard difficulty, and I have to say that the game is good, especially from the art direction point of view. The 50's / 60's Leave it to Beaver, June Cleaver, My Three Sons sort of atmosphere really gets more disturbing given the way the enemies act. Kind of like a loss of innocence deal going on.

For me, my biggest gripe thusfar has been the Big Daddies. I dont know if i'm just doing something wrong or what, but i'm completely depleting my ammo stores on these guys. Hundreds of rounds going into them. Do they have any particular weakness? Or is this the way they are supposed to be.

 

[darkangel74]

Big Daddys have weakness'. When you get the camera make sure you take pictures of thy enemies. All will be reveled and you get bonuses and some plasmids for the baddies you research.

I don't think it overrated. Not the messiah of games but it's pretty cool. Listening to the diaries adds much.

 

[Rebel44]

I believe it is very overrated. All this talk about comparing it to SS2, it's not anything like SS2. At first it seemed like it would be, but after a few hours I realized this was just another run and gun that took place underwater with a few extras. SS2 had lots of tension brought on by, among other things, lack like ammo. Weapons were unvieled pretty slowly and ammo was scarce. In Bioshock by the end of the 2nd level I had a shotgun, machinegun, and grenade launcher and more ammo and money than I knew what to do with. Wallet was always full and ammo was always full. I was able to freely run and gun through the levels like I would any other generic fps. It was a huge letdown and I've stopped playing it out of boredom. I was expecting more, I didn't get it.

Same here

 

[spicey]

I believe it is very overrated. All this talk about comparing it to SS2, it's not anything like SS2. At first it seemed like it would be, but after a few hours I realized this was just another run and gun that took place underwater with a few extras. SS2 had lots of tension brought on by, among other things, lack like ammo. Weapons were unvieled pretty slowly and ammo was scarce. In Bioshock by the end of the 2nd level I had a shotgun, machinegun, and grenade launcher and more ammo and money than I knew what to do with. Wallet was always full and ammo was always full. I was able to freely run and gun through the levels like I would any other generic fps. It was a huge letdown and I've stopped playing it out of boredom. I was expecting more, I didn't get it.

Yep, exactly what I've been saying too.

 

[spicey]

I actually agree. In the demo I really felt I'd be stepping into a huge film-noir underwater world. I'm on the final level right now and short of seeing water and glass domes, you'd swear you could be in any post-apocalyptic world. I never really felt like I was in an underwater world.

I've been thinking the same. You can look out of windows to see water and the city, but many areas are enclosed. It could be anywhere / any corridor.. The demo had plenty of water, the later levels don't. I forgot I was in and underwatter city also, it failed to pull me into the world, I didn't feel part of it.

 

[Fumarole]

Other than an occasional door being held by ice or a shorted keypad, none of the situations required use of plasmids.

Although some fights could be improved by plasmids (catching bombs with Telekenesis), they were a letdown.

Don't forget the section where all of your weapons were taken away, and you had only the plasmids to fight with.

 

[bildad]

Don't forget the section where all of your weapons were taken away, and you had only the plasmids to fight with.

You very quickly regain your weapons and a large chunk of your ammo within a few minutes though. Other than those few minutes you still had enough guns and ammo to make Rambo jealolus. Unlike SS2 where you're in a room, you hear something outside. You got a gun that's almost broke, 2 bullets, and a wrench. What do you do?

 

[Met-AL]

I believe it is very overrated. All this talk about comparing it to SS2, it's not anything like SS2. At first it seemed like it would be, but after a few hours I realized this was just another run and gun that took place underwater with a few extras. SS2 had lots of tension brought on by, among other things, lack like ammo. Weapons were unvieled pretty slowly and ammo was scarce. In Bioshock by the end of the 2nd level I had a shotgun, machinegun, and grenade launcher and more ammo and money than I knew what to do with. Wallet was always full and ammo was always full. I was able to freely run and gun through the levels like I would any other generic fps. It was a huge letdown and I've stopped playing it out of boredom. I was expecting more, I didn't get it.

Turn up the difficulty level then.

 

[bildad]

Turn up the difficulty level then.

I already did.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

I've been thinking the same. You can look out of windows to see water and the city, but many areas are enclosed. It could be anywhere / any corridor.. The demo had plenty of water, the later levels don't. I forgot I was in and underwatter city also, it failed to pull me into the world, I didn't feel part of it.

I was totally waiting for the section of the game where it let you don an underwater suit, and then sent you clunking out onto the ocean floor to retrieve something....... alas, it never happened.

Arcadia was a nice subtle change in scenery, but overall the game needed a tad more variety.

 

[spicey]

I was totally waiting for the section of the game where it let you don an underwater suit, and then sent you clunking out onto the ocean floor to retrieve something....... alas, it never happened.

Arcadia was a nice subtle change in scenery, but overall the game needed a tad more variety.

Good idea, get inside a Big Daddy suit and explore the ocean floor, or move between areas. That would give you a sense of scale.

 

[Dallows]

I don't really recall a lot of the later levels. I was too concentrated on the story and compelled to get to Ryan to probably care. But I remember a lot of water regardless. Just because the city has gone to hell doesn't necessarily mean EVERY section is flooding.

 

[LaTech]

Good idea, get inside a Big Daddy suit and explore the ocean floor, or move between areas. That would give you a sense of scale.

What....like Doom3? The outside levels of D3 were, IMO, pointless wastes of time.

 

[Finkus]

Well, maybe that is because you didn't explore it then. I explored it.



I guess if you didn't figure out how to "play" the game, it probably wasn't very fun. BioShock was just like System Shock 2 and possibly 1 (I didnt play 1 so I can't say first hand) and nothing like Doom 3 or whatever game you guys want to compare it to.

The story, the theme, and the enviroment all pulled together to be one of the best gaming experiences to date. If you missed one of those elements, I can see how you would be in this thread complaining.

I explored every last inch of every level, hacked every console, opened every safe etc, studied the map before I left to make sure I hadn't missed anywhere. I never felt like I had freedom to explore the city at all. I felt like I was given a little bit of slack on the leash to look in a few toilets/shops or poke around the general location of whatever I had been told to go to for the next mission objective. It was a totally linear, level-based game and I had been expecting (hoping) for something a little more expansive. Basically an RPG within Rapture with a central story but lots to see and do at your own pace (which is what exploration is all about) as opposed to a level based FPS. As it is, you can explore... but only a few bits around the area that the game tells you to 'explore' next.

BTW I never once said the game wasn't 'fun'. I though it was a most excellent title and thoroughly enjoyed it. The topic of discussion is whether the game was overhyped... and it was, hugely so.

 

[Dallows]

I explored every last inch of every level, hacked every console, opened every safe etc, studied the map before I left to make sure I hadn't missed anywhere. I never felt like I had freedom to explore the city at all. I felt like I was given a little bit of slack on the leash to look in a few toilets/shops or poke around the general location of whatever I had been told to go to for the next mission objective. It was a totally linear, level-based game and I had been expecting (hoping) for something a little more expansive. Basically an RPG within Rapture with a central story but lots to see and do at your own pace (which is what exploration is all about) as opposed to a level based FPS. As it is, you can explore... but only a few bits around the area that the game tells you to 'explore' next.

BTW I never once said the game wasn't 'fun'. I though it was a most excellent title and thoroughly enjoyed it. The topic of discussion is whether the game was overhyped... and it was, hugely so.

So you were expecting some GTA style sandbox with a forward moving story? I'm confused.

 

[gorilla show]

I already did.

Well, I guess the only thing left to do is to limit yourself to the wrench and pistol, don't pick up too much ammo, and then challenge a big daddy. That should be pretty hard.

Yea...the game was kind of easy, but still easily one of the best games I have ever played.

It's not like I have a hard time with most games anyway. Like Ninja Gaiden-- I thought that game was very easy on normal difficulty. Got halfway through hard without too much trouble. Hardest game ever for me was Solstice on the NES.

 

[Finkus]

So you were expecting some GTA style sandbox with a forward moving story? I'm confused.

I can't say I've ever been a big fan of GTA, so no. I was expecting something more along the lines of STALKER, or classic RPGs like Fallout or early Bioware stuff. I think it's worth noting that Bioshock took a dramatic turn in its development when they couldn't get a publisher and had to sell it as an FPS to get someone to be interested in it. Less ammo, fewer enemies, more tension, fewer contrived hub+spoke levels with all the vending machines in the hub, would have been great imo. System Shock 2 was tense and groundbreaking, Bioshock was a money maker and lots of fun but totally overhyped.

Even something like a Metroid/Zelda/Soulreaver dynamic would have been better than the linear style they used. At least those games give you the impression of letting you explore, backtrack and try different things with newly gained powers to access areas that were previously inacessible.

There are probably zillions of examples out there and an even better thing would have been to make something new (gasp!!). Something that deserved 90%+ ratings in the press for instance.

 

[Finkus]

Well, I guess the only thing left to do is to limit yourself to the wrench and pistol, don't pick up too much ammo, and then challenge a big daddy. That should be pretty hard.

Yea...the game was kind of easy, but still easily one of the best games I have ever played.

It's not like I have a hard time with most games anyway. Like Ninja Gaiden-- I thought that game was very easy on normal difficulty. Got halfway through hard without too much trouble. Hardest game ever for me was Solstice on the NES.

I did something similar. I went through on hard and then decided to go through a second time (a second time! Most games never grab me enough to play more than a couple of evenings, let alone finish all the content) on hard using only the wrench and plasmids. I kind of got bored though after I did the mad surgeon so I'll give it a few months and go back to it.

 

[Dallows]

I did something similar. I went through on hard and then decided to go through a second time (a second time! Most games never grab me enough to play more than a couple of evenings, let alone finish all the content) on hard using only the wrench and plasmids. I kind of got bored though after I did the mad surgeon so I'll give it a few months and go back to it.

Limiting yourself to the wrench and plasmids seems kinda dumb imo.

 

[Dallows]

I can't say I've ever been a big fan of GTA, so no. I was expecting something more along the lines of STALKER, or classic RPGs like Fallout or early Bioware stuff. I think it's worth noting that Bioshock took a dramatic turn in its development when they couldn't get a publisher and had to sell it as an FPS to get someone to be interested in it. Less ammo, fewer enemies, more tension, fewer contrived hub+spoke levels with all the vending machines in the hub, would have been great imo. System Shock 2 was tense and groundbreaking, Bioshock was a money maker and lots of fun but totally overhyped.

Even something like a Metroid/Zelda/Soulreaver dynamic would have been better than the linear style they used. At least those games give you the impression of letting you explore, backtrack and try different things with newly gained powers to access areas that were previously inacessible.

There are probably zillions of examples out there and an even better thing would have been to make something new (gasp!!). Something that deserved 90%+ ratings in the press for instance.

I can't say I know what the developers original direction with the game was. But if you can provide any insight (links, etc) that would be cool. I haven't played STALKER, and I don't think a zelda type style would've worked.

 

[PenPen]

The game is good, but I think it doesn't deserve scores like 10/10 from reviews. Anywhere from a 9.0-9.7 out of 10 seems more reasonable.

 

[Finkus]

Limiting yourself to the wrench and plasmids seems kinda dumb imo.

In what sense? I've already experienced the game as it was intended. The second time I want to be forced to use the environment more, rather than just using it here and there because it was available. I would go into a room and I would see all the environmental triggers, such as big pools of oil or water (lol) dotted about and whatever but ultimately, who cares because I have a Big Daddy as a pet and even if I didn't then I just had to ice something and stick a crossbow bolt in its head to kill it in one shot... on hard mode.

I want to have different fights the second time. I'm going to harvest the sisters and go for a melee/stealth style game. No overpowered BD pet or silly one-shotting weapons with more ammo than I know what to do with.

I can't say I know what the developers original direction with the game was. But if you can provide any insight (links, etc) that would be cool. I haven't played STALKER, and I don't think a zelda type style would've worked.

You would have to google up info if you are interested in the development of the game. I'm sure there are plenty of forum discussions, previews and developer interviews out there. And when I said Zelda, I actually said Metroid/Zelda/Soulreaver. I suppose you would have had to have played all three to know the common thread between all three of those very different games and then that's the sort of exploration dynamic that would have been a decent compromise between the linear FPS we ended up with and the expansion RPG that I had hoped for.

 

[Dallows]

You would have to google up info if you are interested in the development of the game. I'm sure there are plenty of forum discussions, previews and developer interviews out there. And when I said Zelda, I actually said Metroid/Zelda/Soulreaver. I suppose you would have had to have played all three to know the common thread between all three of those very different games and then that's the sort of exploration dynamic that would have been a decent compromise between the linear FPS we ended up with and the expansion RPG that I had hoped for.

Meh, I'm not going to. If it's exploration you're speaking about in relation to the 3 games then seeing Zelda is enough to get a sense of that type of "exploration." To each his own however. If I want an RPG though I'll go play an RPG, otherwise I'll stick to the FPS.

 

[phide]

Limiting yourself to the wrench and plasmids seems kinda dumb imo.

Finding inventive ways to play games is actually quite popular. Playing Fallout as a PC with 1 Intelligence, completing missions in Thief without being seen, or playing through Morrowind without buying items are all interesting ways to alter the gameplay dynamic. Some games just don't seem to "fit" with some people unless interesting limitations are imposed upon the player, and then it becomes something very interesting (but not always that challenging -- it's all about being creative).

A lot of shooters, BioShock included, lack any real sense of role-playing. You aren't the character -- you're just merely guiding the character along, doing whatever the developers intend for you to do. Not terribly fulfilling for a lot of people.

 

[krotch]

I wouldn't rate the game as a perfect 10, unless i'm rating it against other FPS games that's been released this year.

Like most games, there are always flaws. For me, it's the controls. Swapping between weapons and plasmids is a pain. How many ppl ever use the F1 keys in a game, aside from voice chat commands? Granted, there wasn't exactly a lot of locations place them, but they could just force users to have to swap between weapons and plasmids first, then they could have all used your regular 1 - 0 numbers.

I also hate how plasmids seem to swap locations all the freaking time. F1 was ice, F2 electricity, F3 for fire, and so on. This doesn't stay the same. It changes everytime I hit up a gene bank or simply receive a new plasmid. I use to move around plasmids to get it back to the way I had it setup, but for some reason as I went further along in the game, making changes in the gene bank doesn't change the order for selection. It happens after receiving the counter hypnosis chemical. Probably from all the gene swapping.

Zoomed in shooting is all but pointless. Accuracy is the same from what it seems, cept when zoomed in, you see less. Also the iron sights on the tommy gun sucks.

Even with some of the problems, I still find the game extremely enjoyable. I've finished the game a couple times for the differnet endings, but will go through it again, but limiting myself to specific weapons/plasmid combinations or simply using the environment more often.

I was annoyed with them talking about the environment. While there are times you can use it, I find that there wasn't nearly that many times. Oil spills to light on fire or pools of water you can send electricity through. I would have wish more some more options, like being able to freeze a bunch of opponents in those pools of water. If anyone knows of other options, tell me. I'd like to try them out.

 

[sodaz]

I don't think it's overrated at all. It's one of the best FPS games I've played in a while. It's better on the Xbox than on the buggy PC version imo.

Art direction, atmosphere, gameplay, voice acting, graphics and story are all very well done.

 

[spicey]

I also hate how plasmids seem to swap locations all the freaking time. F1 was ice, F2 electricity, F3 for fire, and so on. This doesn't stay the same. It changes everytime I hit up a gene bank or simply receive a new plasmid. I use to move around plasmids to get it back to the way I had it setup, but for some reason as I went further along in the game, making changes in the gene bank doesn't change the order for selection. It happens after receiving the counter hypnosis chemical. Probably from all the gene swapping.

Yeah, that was very annoying. I found in the heat of battle I ended up wondering why Incinerate has turned into Telekinesis! Not very clever.

 

[Frosteh]

Finding inventive ways to play games is actually quite popular. Playing Fallout as a PC with 1 Intelligence, completing missions in Thief without being seen, or playing through Morrowind without buying items are all interesting ways to alter the gameplay dynamic. Some games just don't seem to "fit" with some people unless interesting limitations are imposed upon the player, and then it becomes something very interesting (but not always that challenging -- it's all about being creative).

I feel ya on the Thief thing, that was a great game to roleplay in. Quite often when I lift keys off people I'll use them to gain enterance to an area then drop the key down a toilet or a drain, or put it on the ground next to a drunken guard. Or sometimes I'll knock out 2 guards and put both their bodies in the same bed together.

It makes no difference to the outcome of the level but it's funny to imagine what the consequences might be (2 guards waking up in bed together, LOL), and it feels more professional that not only do you steal a key to get access to somewhere but you also make it look like an accident or try and frame a guard for your actions.

A lot of shooters, BioShock included, lack any real sense of role-playing. You aren't the character -- you're just merely guiding the character along, doing whatever the developers intend for you to do. Not terribly fulfilling for a lot of people.

Sort of true, there's little room for it, but I did find myself doing a few things.

*possible spoilers*

In Fort Frolic (Sander Cohens domain) after helping him with 1-2 of the pictures he has a bit of a mental fit and sends loads of splicers after you while playing this orchestral music.

And I found myself dancing around the bottom floor to the music, moving in circles and changing direction in time to the music, swaying my mouse up and down and around in circles. It was great because you have these splicers coming at you and when one gets close you can time your shotgun blast to their face with the music.

It was kinda like my character had flipped out after all the crazyness in fort frolic and was somehow playing upto Sanders theatrical nature.

 

[spicey]

What....like Doom3? The outside levels of D3 were, IMO, pointless wastes of time.

I liked the outdoor sections in Doom 3, it was a mad panic to get from one airlock to another finding oxygen on the way. At least it broke things up a little

 

[Fumarole]

Like most games, there are always flaws. For me, it's the controls. Swapping between weapons and plasmids is a pain. How many ppl ever use the F1 keys in a game, aside from voice chat commands? Granted, there wasn't exactly a lot of locations place them, but they could just force users to have to swap between weapons and plasmids first, then they could have all used your regular 1 - 0 numbers.

I remapped the key bindings. Simple enough. Hell, I tend to remap keys before even playing most games. That's one of the great things about gaming on the PC - much better control over, well, the controls.

 

[Menelmarar]

yes its linear... its a shooter. half-life 2 is linear, as was half-life, but they are heralded as some of the best FPSes of all time...

HL was a huge leap at the time, HL2 was meh. Couldn't finish HL2, couldn't finish Messiah, couldn't finish Quake4, all boring and blah. I guess after years of linear FPS games, finally get boring. Bioshock demo blew it for me, totally meh, nothing new, as stated before a Doom3 with less spooky atmosphere and casting.

The scene with the plane bashing into the side of the water walkway... never floods... infinite time to just meander your way through =( made me sad. I also can't fathom why the guy would shove that needle thing in his arm. That idea is realistically so fucking far out, just can't comprehend someone really doing that if coming across a hypodermic needle vending machine with unknown "medicine", OH LETS INJECT MYSELF . Also, why do vending machines sell bullets and shotgun ammo... WTF.

Doom3 was finishable, but just barely. The atmosphere was crazy awesome IMHO + a bit of nostalgia feel. Last enjoyable linear fps games were Farcry and Max Payne1/2 IIRC. Though come to think of it last second actually R6 Vegas was a BLAST!

Everyone is different and has different experiences with games.

 

[phide]

Also, why do vending machines sell bullets and shotgun ammo... WTF.

Seemingly, Ryan wanted a society in which the people have power, and firearm ownership was a part of that. Of course, that doesn't explain the vending machines either, but you can't possibly explain those in a believable way.

It's kind of difficult trying to explain how plentiful ammo is in any game, really. Some games, like Fallout, do it well, while others simply fail.

Irrational was too adherent to what System Shock 2 was without realizing that a great many of the concepts in that game don't make any sense. BioShock's environment feels a little too believable to have ammo vending machines around every corner.

 

[fallguy]

I think it is. I dont think its a 10, when you consider everything. Screwed up WS, no AA, DRM issues, etc. The gameplay can get repetitive as well. You plasmid them, then shoot them. Over and over.

I really dig the setting though. That is my favorite time in American history, the music, the setting, I really like it. The gameplay can be very fun, and has a good story.

Personally I think its about a 8.5. Due to the problems I mentioned, lack of replay, ad no multiplayer. I think too many reviewers just went with the flow. Giving it a 10 means it has no problems whatsoever, which is far from the case.

 

[Dallows]

I think it is. I dont think its a 10, when you consider everything. Screwed up WS, no AA, DRM issues, etc. The gameplay can get repetitive as well. You plasmid them, then shoot them. Over and over.

I really dig the setting though. That is my favorite time in American history, the music, the setting, I really like it. The gameplay can be very fun, and has a good story.

Personally I think its about a 8.5. Due to the problems I mentioned, lack of replay, ad no multiplayer. I think too many reviewers just went with the flow. Giving it a 10 means it has no problems whatsoever, which is far from the case.

WS, AA, and DRM are not what decide a games "score" and shouldn't be. Lack of replay, not so sure. I'm on my second time around and it's just as fun. I keep trying to come up with new ways to approach most encounters, ie Big Daddy's. I don't think it's a 10, but definitely higher than 8.5.

 

[Blackstone]

Here is my two cents.

Not only is Bioshock one of the most overrated games of all time, it represents a general lowering of standards and possibly industry capture of video game critics.

First let me just say that I think Bioshock is an outstanding game. There is more to praise about Bioshock than there is to complain about and under ordinary circumstances this would be a game that I would defend against critics as one you should just play and enjoy.

The fact that this game has been given such incredibly high marks by so many review sites is disturbing, however, because in the past those kinds of scores were reserved for games that were so exceptional that they were genre defining or advanced the state of the art of gaming. Bioshock does neither.

Reviewers have put Bioshock on the same plane as games such as Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Super Mario 64, Halo and Golden Eye. They have placed it on a higher plane than Half-Life and Half-Life 2. While I suspect not all of us agree with that list, I don't think anyone can deny the groundbreaking, watershed nature of those games.

Super Mario 64, for example, was one of the first games if not the first truely viable 3D console game and practically ushered in the 3D era of gaming. Metroid Prime represented a remarkable conversion of one of the most highly regarded series in gaming into 3D. Golden Eye brought the "deathmatch" into the console mainstream. Resident Evil 4 just raised the bar in almost every department. Half-Life 2 made physics an integral part of the gameplay and set a new standard for voice acting, character models and art direction. And lastly, Ocarina of Time is one of the most well crafted adventures of all time, brought Zelda into the 3D era and is widely considered to be one of the best, if not the best video games ever made.

How can any reviewer place Bioshock among those envelope pushing and genre defining games? Yes, the art direction is spectacular, and yes the voice acting is solid, and it does have an interesting atmosphre. But this is not a genre defining or state of the art game. The level design is one dimensional and shallow. You are basically led around by an arrow on the screen. The bosses are simply not challenging and can be overcome with brute force without exception. You can proceed through the game by hitting people over the head with a wrench.

The story and a lot of the situations in the game, quite frankly, depend on our lowest, most base fascination with morbid violence, torture, mutilation, sex and foul language. It is the video game equivalent of torture porn like Saw. The biggest selling point of the game is that for the first time in video game history you can...kill a little girl? Yes the little sisters are creepy characters and I like them but lets put things in perspective, there is nothing innovative about the so called "moral choice" system that allows you to kill little girls or save them. It is completely inconsequential to the gameplay. It just doesn't bring anything to genre.

Bioshock is an exceptional game, but the only thing unique about it is the extent to which it plays to the absolute lowest common denominator. Where is the ingenious level design? Where is the character development of Half-Life 2? Where is the challenge of Metroid Prime? Where is the craftsmanship of Zelda? Where is the multi-player innvoation of Golden Eye and Halo?

On PC, the game is riddled with technical glitches. It does not have anti-aliasing support on Windows Vista, period, which is basically makes DX10 in Bioshock a one step forward two steps back situation. Forcing AA makes the game as unstable as I have ever seen a game.

I like Bioshock and would reccommend it to any mature gamer without a second thought, but to hold it out as some sort of masterpiece and to tout the "moral choice" that you get to make in the game as some kind of innovation is just an insult to the intelligence of gamers. It smells of industry capture of the reviewers.

You can flame me. You can tell me that when ten people tell you you are drunk it is time to lie down. But reviewers are trying to sell this game like it is the fine wine of shooters (Half-Life 2) and I don't think it tastes much better than Quake 4. This is an 8.5 / 10 game at best.

I think the review sites are in need of reform. The people that write the reviews should not have any contact with the developers what so ever until they finish playing the final retail version of the game. They shouldn't be playing alpha builds of the game at conventions and trade shows either.

And finally, as an enthusiast I don't appreciate [H] downplaying the anti-aliasing issue in this game as much as they have. Instead of being apologists for the game developers how the lack of AA is no big deal because it wasn't in Rainbow Six and it has been omitted from other hit games (as if that in any way makes the jaggies any less ugly or my 8800GTX any more useful) , how about doing enthusiasts a favor and setting your standards a little higher. AA happens to be one of the biggest advantages of playing on PC, and leaving it out is trend that should be stopped dead in its tracks.

 

[Netrat33]

WS, AA, and DRM are not what decide a games "score" and shouldn't be. Lack of replay, not so sure. I'm on my second time around and it's just as fun. I keep trying to come up with new ways to approach most encounters, ie Big Daddy's. I don't think it's a 10, but definitely higher than 8.5.

Most scores I've seen are this game is a 9. Which is about right.

AA? Tons of Unreal 3 games don't support AA. Not really a deciding factor either. WS despite what everyone says is not messed up. But whatever.

And protesting DRM then just get it for the 360 and be done with it.

 

[hofan41]

...

You can tell me that when ten people tell you you are drunk it is time to lie down. But reviewers are trying to sell this game like it is the fine wine of shooters (Half-Life 2) and I don't think it tastes much better than Quake 4. This is an 8.5 / 10 game at best.

i completely agree

 

[Netrat33]

Bioshock is an exceptional game, but the only thing unique about it is the extent to which it plays to the absolute lowest common denominator. Where is the ingenious level design? Where is the character development of Half-Life 2? Where is the challenge of Metroid Prime? Where is the craftsmanship of Zelda? Where is the multi-player innvoation of Golden Eye and Halo?

There is character development. More so than I say Gordon from HL2. Stick with the game if you would so kindly.
I thought level design was really good too. Everything feels very "organic" and real. Like this is really an underground city and not a game. I don't know really how to describe the natural feel of the stages.

While I understand your post and what your going after, not every game is going to be ground breaking. Much like every movie isn't ground breaking. It's taking a forumla and making it feel fresh and original with it's execution.

 

[Fumarole]

Half-Life 2 had character development?

 

[phide]

WS, AA, and DRM are not what decide a games "score" and shouldn't be.

Why? Are these not aspects of the game?

When you buy BioShock, you're getting all of these things/issues, so why would it be appropriate to factor them out of review, even if they're worth mentioning?

Hypothetical question: if a particular game can run no faster than 12 FPS, would you factor that issue in the total score?