Bioshock - overrated ?

[Dallows]

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?

First off, DRM. Has no impact on the actual game itself. Nothing more I will say.

Second. AA. This is an optional feature. It makes the game look better, yes, blah blah. There is no NEED for it in actuality.

Third. WS. You could argue that the lack of proper function would take the game down some points. Fine, I agree. If something is not implemented correctly it should be noted. But WS is not enough to take it down to 8.5 seeing as how the other 2 are already not enough of an issue to bring the score down anymore.

Having a game run at only 12 fps would make it virtually unplayable. So of course that would affect it's "score." Reviewers all the time comment on how a game will only run at 30fps (for console obv), but how much that affects the review is based on the reviewer. Hence the score quotations.

 

[Frosteh]

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.

These are things I take into account when buying the game and other people feel the same way, it may not bother you personally which is fine, but it's more important to others. It's perfectly reasonable to judge the game on failings like AA and DRM, these are things the user experiences when buying and playing the game, they shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Blackstone]

Half-Life 2 had character development?

Gordon Freeman is the player, I'm talking about Alex, ect and the other non-playables. Actually, it would be wrong to say there isn't character development in Bioshock. My point is that if you look at the games that make it into top 10 territory, almost without exception they do something that just hasn't been done before and is somewhat revolutionary. Those are defining games, they aren't just improvements on old formulas. I'm talking about games that score in the mid to high 9s on a 10 scale.

My point isn't that a game must be as revolutionary to be good, or even excellent. But once you get past 9.0 the reviewers need to give the game a harder look if we are going to take them seriously. Crysis is coming out in a few months, along with Half-Life 2 Episode 2. Giving Bioshock a 10 is like saying that you can't possibly concieve of a game being better than Bioshock. There is no higher score. It is like calibrating perfection and using Bioshock as your point of reference. Is anyone going to seriously argue that it just doesn't get any better than Bioshock? Where do you go from there? It is nothing but a bunch of irrational exuberance and hype. And this is with Halo 3, Half-Life, Team Fortress, Phantom Hourglass, Unreal, Mario and freakin Crysis within a few months of release, and they blew their load on this corridor crawler just because it was a boring summer for games. Now they are going to nitpick all of those games and underrate them because how credible will they look if something truely great hits this fall and they already gave Bioshock universal critical acclaim?

The critics on average gave Bioshock a 9.6. But Supreme Commander, gets an 86/100 metacritic score? I mean something is just wrong here. Metroid Prime gets a 91, with its revolutionary control scheme and awesome level design and construction, environmental puzzles and crazy boss fights and art design, but Bioshock is a better game because you can choose whether to kill a little girl or not and whether to burn your enemies or electrocute them or beat them to death? Give me a break. I'm willing to bet that most adult gamers would actually prefer Metroid Prime over Bioshock if they played both.

And if you aren't convinced, just take a look at this link, if you haven't already. ROFL!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...eropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

 

[phide]

First off, DRM. Has no impact on the actual game itself.

It's part of the product, just as the manual is part of the product. If you remember Jane's simulators, you'd recall how great the manuals were, and you'd be in a tough spot without 'em. It's part of the product -- it's reasonable to factor it in, though that's up to reviewer.

Second. AA. This is an optional feature. It makes the game look better, yes, blah blah. There is no NEED for it in actuality.

High-resolution textures, high-polygon models, bump mapping, HDR and so on also make the game look better. Most don't serve any gameplay-related function. You could execute BioShock on the original Doom engine if you wanted to, without all of the "optional" fancy effects, but reviews would suffer. Graphics are a factor, and as such, a lack of AA support can be a factor.

But WS is not enough to take it down to 8.5 seeing as how the other 2 are already not enough of an issue to bring the score down anymore.

I disagree.

Having a game run at only 12 fps would make it virtually unplayable.

The mouse acceleration and excessively narrow FOV make BioShock unplayable for me (or at least make it VERY difficult to play for any length of time). If I were to review BioShock, and additionally give it a 'score', I'd most definitely factor those in.

All of these aspects are perfectly valid as items that can be factored into a reviewer's final verdict or score.

 

[krotch]

I don't see DRM being something that can bring the score down that much. Yes it's an issue, but not one I see as warranting a downmark on a games score. A sidenote, yes.

DRM doesn't affect how the game looks, how it plays, how it runs, etc. It's simply there so to say "yes, this person bought a legit copy." Do you downrate an artist's song from iTunes, cause the their music had DRM attached onto it? Is the artist less deserving of a platinum?

 

[Dallows]

I disagree.

I'm not going into a quote by quote battle with you. It's just not worth it. Reviews are not supposed to be biased and opinionated. However given the nature of it, they are. This is the problem. WS and DRM are not a problem to me, AA included. I could give 2-shits if there are jaggies. So my review would differ from yours, obv.

Give the overall shitfest of most games that keep coming out I don't think they were entirely wrong to rate Bioshock so high. Your 12fps and manual analyses are humorous.
The graphic enhancements you state are simply results of technical progression. Again, options not necessities. If the engine developer chooses not to put them in his code, sorry, you're out of luck, find a way around it. It would would be foolish to mark a game down so harshly for the lack of implementation.

Again, there is no point.

 

[Blackstone]

I'm not going into a quote by quote battle with you. It's just not worth it. Reviews are not supposed to be biased and opinionated. However given the nature of it, they are. This is the problem. WS and DRM are not a problem to me, AA included. I could give 2-shits if there are jaggies. So my review would differ from yours, obv.

Give the overall shitfest of most games that keep coming out I don't think they were entirely wrong to rate Bioshock so high. Your 12fps and manual analyses are humorous.
The graphic enhancements you state are simply results of technical progression. Again, options not necessities. If the engine developer chooses not to put them in his code, sorry, you're out of luck, find a way around it. It would would be foolish to mark a game down so harshly for the lack of implementation.

Again, there is no point.

Well, I wouldn't expect an AMD/7900GT lagster to understand the need for AA when they don't have the hardware for it anyway. OH ZING! j/k

 

[Netrat33]

These are things I take into account when buying the game and other people feel the same way, it may not bother you personally which is fine, but it's more important to others. It's perfectly reasonable to judge the game on failings like AA and DRM, these are things the user experiences when buying and playing the game, they shouldn't be ignored.

360 version game. None of those come into play right?

Metroid has no AA and not true widescreen (a bit dimension wise) and not HD, but obviously a contender for Game of the Year. Those are not functional for the game. If "pretty" were a factor than Lair would have a shot too.

 

[Netrat33]

Gordon Freeman is the player, I'm talking about Alex, ect and the other non-playables. Actually, it would be wrong to say there isn't character development in Bioshock. My point is that if you look at the games that make it into top 10 territory, almost without exception they do something that just hasn't been done before and is somewhat revolutionary. Those are defining games, they aren't just improvements on old formulas. I'm talking about games that score in the mid to high 9s on a 10 scale.

My point isn't that a game must be as revolutionary to be good, or even excellent. But once you get past 9.0 the reviewers need to give the game a harder look if we are going to take them seriously. Crysis is coming out in a few months, along with Half-Life 2 Episode 2. Giving Bioshock a 10 is like saying that you can't possibly concieve of a game being better than Bioshock. There is no higher score. It is like calibrating perfection and using Bioshock as your point of reference. Is anyone going to seriously argue that it just doesn't get any better than Bioshock? Where do you go from there? It is nothing but a bunch of irrational exuberance and hype. And this is with Halo 3, Half-Life, Team Fortress, Phantom Hourglass, Unreal, Mario and freakin Crysis within a few months of release, and they blew their load on this corridor crawler just because it was a boring summer for games. Now they are going to nitpick all of those games and underrate them because how credible will they look if something truely great hits this fall and they already gave Bioshock universal critical acclaim?

The critics on average gave Bioshock a 9.6. But Supreme Commander, gets an 86/100 metacritic score? I mean something is just wrong here. Metroid Prime gets a 91, with its revolutionary control scheme and awesome level design and construction, environmental puzzles and crazy boss fights and art design, but Bioshock is a better game because you can choose whether to kill a little girl or not and whether to burn your enemies or electrocute them or beat them to death? Give me a break. I'm willing to bet that most adult gamers would actually prefer Metroid Prime over Bioshock if they played both.

And if you aren't convinced, just take a look at this link, if you haven't already. ROFL!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...eropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

Looking too deep in a number really. I know at least on IGN podcasts, they techincally hate giving a number, but people want those. They rather write the article and have you read it. But everyone skips the article and goes right for the score. But regardless, the score is an opinion. Lair gets a horrible score. 4 people out there might really love it though. I think when a game gets good ratings, it does state it has good qualities. Games getting 9 or higher: Instant classics. I can't see how Bioshock doesn't deserve at least instant classic status. A game 10 years from now when everything loooks photorealistic, you'll still be able to go back and enjoy that game, just like all those you posted.

Personally I hated Oblivion. It gets super high scores. I feel it's an emotionless game. But I can see why people would like it and do feel it's an instant classic.

 

[Netrat33]

High-resolution textures, high-polygon models, bump mapping, HDR and so on also make the game look better. Most don't serve any gameplay-related function. You could execute BioShock on the original Doom engine if you wanted to, without all of the "optional" fancy effects, but reviews would suffer. Graphics are a factor, and as such, a lack of AA support can be a factor.

It's part, but not all. Okami has no hgih resolution textures, bump mapping or HDR and it's a fantastic game. Metroid has none either. But people enjoy it. Lair once again is the beauty of saying "Graphics aren't everything" It's probably the definative of hype of looks meeting downfall.

The mouse acceleration and excessively narrow FOV make BioShock unplayable for me (or at least make it VERY difficult to play for any length of time). If I were to review BioShock, and additionally give it a 'score', I'd most definitely factor those in.

Mouse acceleration I can give ya no problem. That is the controls of a game. Narrow FOV is in your head. If they just kept those stupid bars on the screen for non widescreen monitors like every other PC game you'd never even know the difference (resident evil 4 and Condemned come to mind). That was a sad move that got them yelled at needlessly.

 

[stop!theradio]

I'm gonna make a new thread titled: "every highly rated game: overrated?"

Because it seems that for every highly rated game, someone makes a thread just like this.

 

[Dallows]

I'm gonna make a new thread titled: "every highly rated game: overrated?"

Because it seems that for every highly rated game, someone makes a thread just like this.

I remember a thread about Halo being overrated from a long time ago on this forum. Went on for ages. Great thread.

 

[krotch]

Halo wasn't even great. It was simply an FPS that brought consoles up to the level that PC games have been sitting at for years.

 

[Finkus]

And if you aren't convinced, just take a look at this link, if you haven't already. ROFL!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...eropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

I'm truly disturbed. He sounds like me (well, a speeded up version), thinks like me, has the same opinions as me and has probably been playing games for the same amount of time as me. For all I know he's from the same town as me.

I don't know whether to forget I ever followed the link and chock it all up as a bad dream or bookmark it as compulsive viewing and tune in every Wednesday. Either way, many thanks for the link!

 

[Blackstone]

I'm truly disturbed. He sounds like me (well, a speeded up version), thinks like me, has the same opinions as me and has probably been playing games for the same amount of time as me. For all I know he's from the same town as me.

I don't know whether to forget I ever followed the link and chock it all up as a bad dream or bookmark it as compulsive viewing and tune in every Wednesday. Either way, many thanks for the link!

I hope that review goes viral. I'll be tuning in every Wednesday. lol

 

[phide]

I'm not going into a quote by quote battle with you.

It's just a discussion, not a battle.

In any case, it all boils down to opinion. You feel it's wrong for reviewers to express opinion, but what would a review be were it all facts and figures? If you're drawing a line in the sand, you're drawing a line in the sand. A reviewer inevitably needs to inform you what works and what doesn't work, whether it's gameplay, the storyline, the graphics/AI/sound/physics etc., etc.. If you wanted to know what a game does, or what developers claim it does, you could just look on the back of the box.

A theoretical reviewer giving BioShock a 12/100 solely because it has DRM isn't "wrong". You might disagree with it, and you might not ever read another review of his again, but that doesn't make it wrong.

It's part, but not all.

Absolutely. Still, reviews praise great graphics, and there's certainly a place for that in a review, and it all depends on what expectations there are for the platform. We have certain expectations when we buy an X360 game, and we have different expectations for a Wii game, a PSP game, and so on and so forth.

Narrow FOV is in your head.

No, I assure you it's quite real. I'm no hypochondriac. Keep in mind that the view frame and the field of view are different concepts. BioShock's FOV is too narrow (75 degrees), and I find it disorienting and nausea-inducing. The lack of horizontal+ support isn't a deal breaker for me, but the uncomfortable feeling I experience while playing is.

 

[gorilla show]

Guys, just chill out. Everyone is different and not everyone likes the same shit.

For example: Titanic is considered one of the best movies ever and I cannot stand watching that piece of shit (IMO).

 

[Allos]

Titanic is considered one of the best movies ever and I cannot stand watching that piece of shit (IMO).

A-FUCKING-MEN BROTHER!

 

[MrWizard6600]

irrational games, (and ionstorm and good ol' looking glass studios) has yet to release a game that does anything less than impress. System shock series, Dues ex, and now bioshock, every game is excellent. Bioshock is in many ways like system shock.

Spoiler warning!

Irrational really has always been a good story teller, bioshock is no exception. It's same core elements as system shock 2, including its general eerie-ness, and mature content, with a graphic makeover. Atlas from is Chief of security whats-her-name. Frank Fontane is Shodan. You go under the impression that your (case = bioshock) trying to save atlas's family from the the splicers; (case = System shock 2) trying to save the ship from the virus shodan. You find out (case = Bioshock) Atlas is not a doo-goodie and is infact the somewhat evil frank fontane; (case = System shock 2) Chief of security whats-her-name is not infact who she says she is but is infact shodan. This game is really the shot of mature content which the next gen consoles have, in my opinion, been really missing. We have had games like this previously but not on such a damn fine engine.

The shooting style of is nothing special. I play counter strike because it has the single most intuative shooting system of any game anywhere. In bioshock bullets from your tommy gun spray out random. The shotgun buck spreads like it should and loses damage as the range increases, as it should.

the genetic modification is impressive. To take down a big daddy on hard mode you really need to plan ahead. You need to lay traps and predict his movements to the best of your ability. The security target ability and the enrage ability will be your best friend when your dealing with the big daddies. And it always helps to set them on fire.

Pipe dream, as the hacking ability is pretty lame :\. A variety of different mini games, or something more intuitive (cvars?) would be nice.

Anyways, I quite enjoyed the game, and with an extra chunk of funding you could have a serious powerhouse in the online market.

 

[Dallows]

It's just a discussion, not a battle.

In any case, it all boils down to opinion. You feel it's wrong for reviewers to express opinion, but what would a review be were it all facts and figures? If you're drawing a line in the sand, you're drawing a line in the sand. A reviewer inevitably needs to inform you what works and what doesn't work, whether it's gameplay, the storyline, the graphics/AI/sound/physics etc., etc.. If you wanted to know what a game does, or what developers claim it does, you could just look on the back of the box.

A theoretical reviewer giving BioShock a 12/100 solely because it has DRM isn't "wrong". You might disagree with it, and you might not ever read another review of his again, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Reviews should not boil down to opinion. Actually, I could care less if they do, because they will anyway. I read reviews to get an idea of how the game plays, the story, etc. I don't give a shit if the guy likes it or not. It's his job to point out the basics. If a review raves about a game throughout and gives it a low score just because he didn't really enjoy the game (the mechanics were good etc) wtf do you say then?

You make my point exactly when you say " A reviewer inevitably needs to inform you what works and what doesn't work, whether it's gameplay, the storyline, the graphics/AI/sound/physics etc., etc.. " Which is exactly what Bioshock does, and everything works as it should. Which is why it gets the high scores. Giving it a 12 because of DRM is soley opinion based and yes, wrong.

You giving Bioshock an 8.5 because of WS, DRM and mouse acceleration is PURELY OPINION BASED. 95% of consumers don't have a clue about mouse acceleration or probably even use WS, however, yes it's growing.

So keep arguing that Bioshock doesn't deserve it's high scores if you want.

 

[Dallows]

This is a supposed reader review at ign.com. This is exactly how not to review a game.

"This is possibly the single worst PC Release I've played in years. Its buggy to all hell, thousands, if not more, people are unable to even PLAY the game. Apparently 2k is "on vacation" so they cannot patch the game at this time.


The single biggest and most annoying thing is the lack of any real resposibility on their part, they haven't even made a press release stating even something as simple as "We are aware of the myriad of issues plaguing the PC release of BioShock and hope to have a patch out in the coming weeks." No, instead they're all on vacation.


In all honesty, I would say don't buy this game, and I meant it. Do *NOT* buy this game until they've provided at least a passing example of customer support and care. It's a sad, sad example of a company just ceasing to care about their consumers"

This child ended up giving the game a 4.9. Justified?

 

[Krenum]

buggy? lol guy must be playing it on a crappy computer, I havent had one single crash or bad texture , its the most optimized game I have played in a long time.

The game truly is a work of art. IMO it surpasses HL2.

 

[bildad]

I don't think Bioshock is anything like System Shock; to call it as such is almost an insult to System Shock. Story wise it shares some of the same elements but the similarity ends there. Gameplay wise it feels more like something along the lines of Jedi Knight II. Run and gun with plasmids instead of force powers. Bioshock is too much of a shooter to be accuratly compared to System Shock.

 

[phide]

You make my point exactly when you say " A reviewer inevitably needs to inform you what works and what doesn't work, whether it's gameplay, the storyline, the graphics/AI/sound/physics etc., etc.. " Which is exactly what Bioshock does, and everything works as it should.

That's not quite what I meant by "works". Yes, all of those feature work at a functional level. The graphics display, the sound events play, and the AI does its thing. It's expected that those things "work" (i.e., your enemies just don't stand there. We can already infer that). But what would be the purpose of a review if it only boiled down to these points:

BioShock is a game. You play in the first person. You kill Big Daddies, then you either harvest or save the Little Sisters, and you get RYAN. You use RYAN to buy tonics. You use tonics to kill AIs. The AIs shoot back at you. You go to the Farmer's Market. You kill more things. You go in a submarine.

You could fluff a lot of the wording there, and provide some exposition and explain the plot line, but all it's doing you is telling you what the game is. Don't you want to know if the graphics are 'good' or 'bad'? If the AI is 'challenging' or 'mindless'? If the sound is 'awesome' or 'terrible'? If the controls are 'tight' or 'sloppy'? If the story is 'engaging' or 'boring'? If the game runs 'beautifully' or 'terribly'?

Most reviewers aren't going to rate a game based on what its technical features are. If they do, then it's technically a review, but is there any real value in it? It's akin to a film reviewer only telling you what the film is about, what kind of film it was shot on and so on and so forth. How do you know it's a film worth seeing?

You giving Bioshock an 8.5 because of WS, DRM and mouse acceleration is PURELY OPINION BASED.

Every score from every review is 100% opinion-based. There's no complex tabulation system, where a reviewer goes through a checklist: "Does this game have AI? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0. Does this game have graphics? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0. Does this game have sound? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0."

 

[Dallows]

That's not quite what I meant by "works". Yes, all of those feature work at a functional level. The graphics display, the sound events play, and the AI does its thing. It's expected that those things "work" (i.e., your enemies just don't stand there. We can already infer that).

Well, see when I said "working as it should." Means that there are no blantant problems with how the game functions. Nothing "game-breaking" you could say. Don't stretch too hard you might pull a muscle.

You could fluff a lot of the wording there, and provide some exposition and explain the plot line, but all it's doing you is telling you what the game is. Don't you want to know if the graphics are 'good' or 'bad'? If the AI is 'challenging' or 'mindless'? If the sound is 'awesome' or 'terrible'? If the controls are 'tight' or 'sloppy'? If the story is 'engaging' or 'boring'? If the game runs 'beautifully' or 'terribly'?

All of the things you said there, are what reviews are. Not "I thought the controls sucked." Do you understand the difference?

Most reviewers aren't going to rate a game based on what its technical features are. If they do, then it's technically a review, but is there any real value in it? It's akin to a film reviewer only telling you what the film is about, what kind of film it was shot on and so on and so forth. How do you know it's a film worth seeing?

Again, you seem to be just ignoring all of the past times I've said I don't have a problem with a reviewer throwing in their own thoughts/opinions of the game, just that it shouldn't affect what the game is. Again. "I didn't like the last level. Score = 6/10." When the rest of the game is flawless. To you that would be a fine review. To me, that's moronic and why the "scores" are useless. One of the points I think I've been pushing.

Every score from every review is 100% opinion-based. There's no complex tabulation system, where a reviewer goes through a checklist: "Does this game have AI? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0. Does this game have graphics? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0. Does this game have sound? If yes, 10 points, if no, 0."

Keep stretching. Have you see the ign.com score table for instance. Have you noticed the final score is not an average? Curious isn't it. But again you're just giving obvious over-exaggerations which are humorous at best. Keep going though.

 

[lopoetve]

If you play the game using some ingenuity, it's a lot of fun. I came across a group of splicers unaware of my presence so I backed up a little, found a corpse, lit it on fire with the incinerate plasmid then hurled it at them with my telekinesis...took 'em all out

I think it's been a while since a game of this caliber has come out and so some of the review scores are a bit inflated. The game is not 100/100. It certainly has some physics issues and glitches that can break the immersion but everything else that makes for a great game like gameplay, visuals, sound, story; BioShock has it all.

exactly. instead of FORCING you to come up with unique ways to win, it gives you the option. Most complainers aren't trying things like this.

 

[lopoetve]

They should have created situations where you needed to think of creative ways to use your plasmids in conjunction with your weapons to progress instead of letting people gun down everything.

why? Having to solve a crafted solution the same way every time gets VERY boring in other playthroughs... see mosto f the gravity puzzles in HL2 for example.

 

[phide]

All of the things you said there, are what reviews are. Not "I thought the controls sucked." Do you understand the difference?

Do you? 'Good', 'bad', 'sloppy', 'awesome' and so on are not statistical in nature, at least not in the format we're discussing here -- they are words used to express opinion. A typical review uses these words and many like them, and they're certainly appropriate to use in a review.

Do you see the differentiation between expression of opinion and expression of fact? If you don't like the manner in which opinions are expressed, then don't put any stock into the review. Reviewers, just like talk show hosts, tend to not bother with the inclusion of the words "I thought", "I feel" and so on for obvious reasons.

Previously, you stated that "reviews should not boil down to opinion", and that a review should "point out the basics", but you're now stating that the expression of opinion is "what reviews are". If the expression of opinion is what a review is, then what is the score? Does opinion not factor into the score? Who decides what factors are given more weight in the tabulation of a rating or score? You, or the reviewer? If antiDRMgaming.com gives BioShock a 12/100 because of its inclusion of copy protection, is that wrong? What if proDRMgaming.com gave it the same score? And Gamespy.com?

Yeah, I'd say a review like that would be "fine", but that doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with it. Two different things.

Again, you seem to be just ignoring all of the past times I've said I don't have a problem with a reviewer throwing in their own thoughts/opinions of the game, just that it shouldn't affect what the game is.

The reviewer's opinions don't change the game. That's a given.

But again you're just giving obvious over-exaggerations which are humorous at best.

I'm just trying to make counter-points based upon exactly what you've said. If you feel I've misinterpreted you in some way, perhaps you should be more clear when you express yourself.

 

[fallguy]

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.

Sure it is. Its part of the game, or the lack of it. It can decrease your enjoyment of the game, or in the case of DRM, even if you can play it.

Its got pretty simplistic and repetitive gameplay to me. Sure its fun, a little fresh, has a good story (if not very original), and has a great setting to me. A 8.5 is still a very good score... Well above average.

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.

So? How many games can use AA? Id say about 99%, give or take. It is messed up, its painfully obvious. The lead programmer was on record saying that WS would give you more game, about two weeks before it went gold. Thats your answer to DRM, just get a 360? Sorry, thats borderline retarded.

 

[Netrat33]

So? How many games can use AA? Id say about 99%, give or take. It is messed up, its painfully obvious. The lead programmer was on record saying that WS would give you more game, about two weeks before it went gold. Thats your answer to DRM, just get a 360? Sorry, thats borderline retarded.

I said Unreal 3 games. Rainbow Six Vegas, GRAW 2, and Splinter Cell. Bioshock isn't something new to this. I'd like to see please where the programmer stated WS would give you more game.

It's a 360 game too. DRM is not part of gaming. Meaning shouldn't effect the score. Which to do so, borderline retarded Quite frankly, my decision about DRM (especially in Bioshock) should have been quite clear the past couple of threads, on this subject.

 

[Dallows]

Do you? 'Good', 'bad', 'sloppy', 'awesome' and so on are not statistical in nature, at least not in the format we're discussing here -- they are words used to express opinion. A typical review uses these words and many like them, and they're certainly appropriate to use in a review.

Actually, some terms, ie good, bad, could be used to state fact. But whatever.

Do you see the differentiation between expression of opinion and expression of fact? If you don't like the manner in which opinions are expressed, then don't put any stock into the review. Reviewers, just like talk show hosts, tend to not bother with the inclusion of the words "I thought", "I feel" and so on for obvious reasons.

I guess you kinda missed my whole "reviews are pointless" portion of my statements, though not direct, were still there. Sure if I wanted someone to believe something I was trying tell them I wouldn't use opinionated structure either.

"The holocaust did happen." sounds better than "I think the holocaust happened."

Previously, you stated that "reviews should not boil down to opinion", and that a review should "point out the basics", but you're now stating that the expression of opinion is "what reviews are". If the expression of opinion is what a review is, then what is the score? Does opinion not factor into the score? Who decides what factors are given more weight in the tabulation of a rating or score? You, or the reviewer? If antiDRMgaming.com gives BioShock a 12/100 because of its inclusion of copy protection, is that wrong? What if proDRMgaming.com gave it the same score? And Gamespy.com?

Yeah, I'd say a review like that would be "fine", but that doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with it. Two different things.

Stop with the what-ifs. I guess I wasn't clear enough, and I apologize, sometimes when you think of something it's not always interpreted the way you want. Yes, reviews shouldn't boil down to opinion. But unfortunately that's the way they are. Meaning of course that's what all reviews turn out to be. I didn't mean that as the definition of a review. Follow?

The reviewer's opinions don't change the game. That's a given.

No, but the reviewer opinion changes the score.


I'm done with this thread. I think I'll make another "Halo is overrated" thread and you can all join me there and disagree.

 

[fallguy]

I said Unreal 3 games. Rainbow Six Vegas, GRAW 2, and Splinter Cell. Bioshock isn't something new to this. I'd like to see please where the programmer stated WS would give you more game.

It's a 360 game too. DRM is not part of gaming. Meaning shouldn't effect the score. Which to do so, borderline retarded Quite frankly, my decision about DRM (especially in Bioshock) should have been quite clear the past couple of threads, on this subject.

And? It should still be mentioned, and figured in with the score.

No problem, since you dont believe me. Chris Kline, Lead Programmer, Bioshock

So what? I bought the PC version. DRM is a part of gaming, when it wont let you play the game. I have a dual boot PC, installed it on Vista and XP. Why? Because Vista isnt the best for gaming in every game. In very few actually. So I wanted to see which was better for me. I also have a laptop, that I take with me. Well, after I installed it on Vista/XP, I couldnt play it on my laptop. Thats pretty crappy to me. I paid for the game, I should be able to play it on any PC I have. Saying that considering this is borderline retarded, doesnt even come close. Your "fix" for problems people have after buying the game, is to buy the 360 version, is. Especially if someone doesnt own a 360 to start with.

I dont know, nor really care what your opinion is on the DRM in this game. Reviews should at least mention it in reviews. Same as the default FOV of 75. I cant think of a handful of FPS games that have this. It does induce motion sickness on some people, as have posted in this very forum. And as I showed, the lead programmer said WS would give more game.

I dont rate the game an 8.5 solely because of these three issues. But they do impact it. They're already on a patch to fix the WS and DRM issues, which shows the game is not perfect. A "AAA" game such as this, shouldnt have these issues to start with. The title of this thread is, is it over rated. A score of 10 is perfect. Without flaw, no issues at all, perfect gameplay, etc. That simply is not the truth to me.

 

[krameriffic]

This is a supposed reader review at ign.com. This is exactly how not to review a game.

"This is possibly the single worst PC Release I've played in years. Its buggy to all hell, thousands, if not more, people are unable to even PLAY the game. Apparently 2k is "on vacation" so they cannot patch the game at this time.


The single biggest and most annoying thing is the lack of any real resposibility on their part, they haven't even made a press release stating even something as simple as "We are aware of the myriad of issues plaguing the PC release of BioShock and hope to have a patch out in the coming weeks." No, instead they're all on vacation.


In all honesty, I would say don't buy this game, and I meant it. Do *NOT* buy this game until they've provided at least a passing example of customer support and care. It's a sad, sad example of a company just ceasing to care about their consumers"

This child ended up giving the game a 4.9. Justified?

I see. So the amalgam review numbers should overlook the bad experiences and focus on the good. Part of statistical analysis is accounting for and dealing with outliers, not ignoring them for the sake of making the numbers look good. You seem to be saying that this guy shouldn't be reviewing it at all because he can't even get it to work, but that doesn't make any sense at all because the game should work, ergo he is docking them 5.1 points for selling him a $50 paper weight. The world doesn't actually operate on the logic that if you ignore the bad, it will go away. You seem like an intelligent and cognizant person, just imagine if you had waited for the past two or three years for this game to come out and then you couldn't even play it. Your review would be less than stellar also.

 

[The Null]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/103130.html

thats all you need to know, and personaly, i agree with him, its just liek system shock.

 

[Dallows]

I see. So the amalgam review numbers should overlook the bad experiences and focus on the good. Part of statistical analysis is accounting for and dealing with outliers, not ignoring them for the sake of making the numbers look good. You seem to be saying that this guy shouldn't be reviewing it at all because he can't even get it to work, but that doesn't make any sense at all because the game should work, ergo he is docking them 5.1 points for selling him a $50 paper weight. The world doesn't actually operate on the logic that if you ignore the bad, it will go away. You seem like an intelligent and cognizant person, just imagine if you had waited for the past two or three years for this game to come out and then you couldn't even play it. Your review would be less than stellar also.

Srsly? Wow. Anyway. I highly doubt he even played the game. Show me in that review where he states he himself had problems getting the game to run. Do you know how many games in the past have had similar problems? Do you realize how many thousands upon thousands of different hardware configurations there could be? Do you realize that one small inconsistency or software conflict could fuck up your whole system? Be thankful that your current setup is actually working. Lets see you try to analyze that and come up with a working game that will operate on most every system with limited to no problems. I'm no developer or software coder, but I bet that shit ain't easy. Shit happens. They try to figure out why it doesn't run on your machine, offer suggestions to fix it. Sometimes there are legit reasons why the game won't run. Just because it doesn't run on your specific machine for whatever reason doesn't give you the right to rant and rave like a little bitch. The world isn't perfect, and neither is a video game running on your computer. Shit is bound to go wrong.

If I wanted 3 years for a game to come out, and it didn't install on my machine. I would address the situation like a reasonable person. I would investigate, try to find a solution, contact their tech support. See if there's a known issue. I wouldn't just fly off the fucking handle like a moron. A lot of shit "should work" but doesn't.

 

[Netrat33]

And? It should still be mentioned, and figured in with the score.

No problem, since you dont believe me. Chris Kline, Lead Programmer, Bioshock

So what? I bought the PC version. DRM is a part of gaming, when it wont let you play the game. I have a dual boot PC, installed it on Vista and XP. Why? Because Vista isnt the best for gaming in every game. In very few actually. So I wanted to see which was better for me. I also have a laptop, that I take with me. Well, after I installed it on Vista/XP, I couldnt play it on my laptop. Thats pretty crappy to me. I paid for the game, I should be able to play it on any PC I have. Saying that considering this is borderline retarded, doesnt even come close. Your "fix" for problems people have after buying the game, is to buy the 360 version, is. Especially if someone doesnt own a 360 to start with.

Omg. Call them. They will fix this for you. You get 5 installs. You're not gaming in Vista if you like it in XP more or vice versa. You get to then install it on your laptop with the older 2 installs. Me suggesting "go to xbox/ps3" is basically me being tired of the constant whining PC gamers have become. Ya we are talking about Bioshock now, but that's only the game that pushed me over with gamers. We can pick any PC game and see how quiet those that game's lauch was. Doubt It.

I dont know, nor really care what your opinion is on the DRM in this game. Reviews should at least mention it in reviews. Same as the default FOV of 75. I cant think of a handful of FPS games that have this. It does induce motion sickness on some people, as have posted in this very forum. And as I showed, the lead programmer said WS would give more game.

Mention it all you want. DRM is not a gameplay feature.

As to widescreen, You mean like people nothing getting motion sickness in HL2 right? Oh wait no. I've been under the impression it's opposite. But seeing how Chris stated more in widescreen, I can see how they inserted foot in mouth. But then again I can also see where they stated about it being developed for widescreen in mind which they did.

I dont rate the game an 8.5 solely because of these three issues. But they do impact it. They're already on a patch to fix the WS and DRM issues, which shows the game is not perfect. A "AAA" game such as this, shouldnt have these issues to start with. The title of this thread is, is it over rated. A score of 10 is perfect. Without flaw, no issues at all, perfect gameplay, etc. That simply is not the truth to me.

There would be no such thing as a 10 especially on PC. But Bioshock isn't getting constant perfect 10s either.

 

[phide]

Mention it all you want. DRM is not a gameplay feature.

No, it's part of the product, just like the box, the manual, the installer, the tech support -- these are all aspects of the product. Many reviews tend to overlook these things, but they're valid points of evaluation. A reviewer is most certainly 'allowed' to mention it, and factor it into the score if he or she chooses.

You mean like people nothing getting motion sickness in HL2 right? Oh wait no. I've been under the impression it's opposite.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Did you mean to say "people noting"?

 

[Dallows]

No, it's part of the product, just like the box, the manual, the installer, the tech support -- these are all aspects of the product. Many reviews tend to overlook these things, but they're valid points of evaluation. A reviewer is most certainly 'allowed' to mention it, and factor it into the score if he or she chooses.

You had me at box, manual, installer and tech support.

 

[MrWizard6600]

game is awsome. I <3 irrational and I <3 bioshock.

That said, this game could have used more monay. Hacking using Cvars (or something cool) instead of pipe dream would have been nice. A more dynamic plot (which I'm sure creator whats-his-name was wanting to do) would have done this game some good. If your bad the plots modified. If your good plots modified. If you make some crucial kill at a crucial moment, plots modified. I want a plot thats got a plot map like the progression of planets in Starfox 64, A different ending cutscene at the end doesn't do it for me.

Of course, multiplayer, but I expect a patch/ expantion to fix that. This games too profitable to not be multiplayer.

System shock 2 just BEGS for a bloody seaquel but god damned EA owns the majority of the rights to it, and theres no way the various companies with their various intelectual property rights to the game will ever pull their heads out of their asses enough organize the development of SS3. God I want it so bad tho... A nice big 50 million budget, lots o marketing, Xbox live, PS3 "home". Better AI... im drooling just thinking about it.

Anyways. This games nothing less then excellent. But, being someone who considers the entirty of a games replayabillity to be in its online play, I cant bring myself to give this more then an 8.5 Yes, I will continue to reload save points so I can lay mah traps to see if I can take down a big daddy without firing a shot (theres one part where I managed to hack two rocket firing turrets ). But after that, this game might be played again in a couple of years for nistalgic purposes, but its done.

8.5. If you like single player, go for it. If you like multiplayer, its at least worth a 7 day rent. Get through the game, its awsomness is jaw dropping.

 

[Netrat33]

No, it's part of the product, just like the box, the manual, the installer, the tech support -- these are all aspects of the product. Many reviews tend to overlook these things, but they're valid points of evaluation. A reviewer is most certainly 'allowed' to mention it, and factor it into the score if he or she chooses.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Did you mean to say "people noting"?

Opps! Noticing Sentence wasn't written that clear anyway. People were getting motion sickeness with HL2.
But my last statement because I believe in this: 8's and up are great for gaming scores that go up to 10. 9's to me are simply instant classics. Reading too much into the .2 or .6 or .# whatever, it's too hung up on a number.