Ken Levine's Take On System Shock 3

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
In an upcoming interview with The Game Informer Show, Ken Levine gave his thoughts on the recently announced System Shock 3. Overall, it seems like he was pretty supportive of Otherside Entertainment's upcoming sequel.

“I wish them the best," Levine said. "I have a personal connection to System Shock, [System Shock 2] was the first game I ever shipped. We were completely stumbling around in the dark on that game… so the impact that it had was a complete surprise to us. Without that game, there’s nothing else for us. Nothing would have happened. So I have a deep connection with it... I’m excited, I hope they can figure it out and make a cool game out of it.”
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Ken Levine honestly lost a lot of my respect after BS Infinite. I found the game to be pretty horrible honestly.
 

Cmdrmonkey

Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
1,011
What was so bad about Bioshock Infinite? I thought it was great. People bitch way too much about games these days.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
What was so bad about Bioshock Infinite? I thought it was great. People bitch way too much about games these days.

People bitch too much? Are people not allowed to have opinions anymore or something?

Let's see here...for one the game was NOTHING like ANYTHING we were shown prior to launch. No open world, no stealth, Elizabeth's powers and abilities were MASSIVELY pulled back from what we were shown, NPC interactions were all but completely missing, etc.

So right off the bat the game didn't reach any of the expectations that we were shown multiple times. So all the hype for it up to launch was basically a lie since no one ever bothered to say, "Yo, all that stuff you saw and are basing your purchase on, yeah, none of that's there anymore".

Secondly the game was soooo boring and soooo drawn out. If it wasn't a constant nonsensical wave of bullet sponge enemies to the constant need to forage for food or lock picks (which Elizabeth always seemed to have when SHE needed them) to the bland level designs after the first ~2 hours or so...it was so repetitive.

2 minutes of story
20 minute battles
15 minutes of searching desks and trash cans in enemy free areas
20 minute battles
20 minute battles
15 minutes of searching desks and trash cans in enemy free areas
2 minutes of story
20 minute battles
etc etc etc

That's basically how the game played out until it ended. You know, I actually fell asleep playing this game...twice. That's never happened to me. I seriously had to force myself to finish it towards the last 6 hours or so just so it wasn't a complete waste of money.

So yeah...plenty of reasons why, objectively, it was a pretty lame game. Hell, you didn't even have to aim down the sights on your weapons for them to be completely accurate...what's that about? Not to mention a lot of other annoyances like the Voxophones containing WAY too much of the main story plot and back story so that if you missed one or two here and there a lot of stuff didn't make any sense (like the one I missed because it was hidden describing how the Elixirs were created). Other things like traps that didn't work because the levels were way too large during battles and just so much more that was poorly executed.

Thought that the first Bioshock was brilliant though...everything about it was on point. BS2 was too much of the same and I didn't really like it that much but it wasn't bad...just a lot didn't make sense (like me being a Big Dad but having a quarter of my health drain from me because I got hit with a pipe...really?). Certainly not up to the same quality as the first but it wasn't the same developer either so it was to be expected.

Here's a good video that goes more into depth about the issues with Infinite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc15KgfNJsw

So yeah, it's not me bitching or complaining over nothing...it just wasn't really that good of a game in a lot of aspects and failed to meet any of the original goals that we were shown multiple times. It was especially bad as a Bioshock game more importantly. For people, especially "professional" reviews to claim it was one of the greatest games ever made just made me shake my head in confusion.

/rant...*takes a breath*...
 

U-238

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
255
People bitch too much? Are people not allowed to have opinions anymore or something?

Let's see here...for one the game was NOTHING like ANYTHING we were shown prior to launch. No open world, no stealth, Elizabeth's powers and abilities were MASSIVELY pulled back from what we were shown, NPC interactions were all but completely missing, etc.

So right off the bat the game didn't reach any of the expectations that we were shown multiple times. So all the hype for it up to launch was basically a lie since no one ever bothered to say, "Yo, all that stuff you saw and are basing your purchase on, yeah, none of that's there anymore".

Secondly the game was soooo boring and soooo drawn out. If it wasn't a constant nonsensical wave of bullet sponge enemies to the constant need to forage for food or lock picks (which Elizabeth always seemed to have when SHE needed them) to the bland level designs after the first ~2 hours or so...it was so repetitive.

2 minutes of story
20 minute battles
15 minutes of searching desks and trash cans in enemy free areas
20 minute battles
20 minute battles
15 minutes of searching desks and trash cans in enemy free areas
2 minutes of story
20 minute battles
etc etc etc

That's basically how the game played out until it ended. You know, I actually fell asleep playing this game...twice. That's never happened to me. I seriously had to force myself to finish it towards the last 6 hours or so just so it wasn't a complete waste of money.

So yeah...plenty of reasons why, objectively, it was a pretty lame game. Hell, you didn't even have to aim down the sights on your weapons for them to be completely accurate...what's that about? Not to mention a lot of other annoyances like the Voxophones containing WAY too much of the main story plot and back story so that if you missed one or two here and there a lot of stuff didn't make any sense (like the one I missed because it was hidden describing how the Elixirs were created). Other things like traps that didn't work because the levels were way too large during battles and just so much more that was poorly executed.

Thought that the first Bioshock was brilliant though...everything about it was on point. BS2 was too much of the same and I didn't really like it that much but it wasn't bad...just a lot didn't make sense (like me being a Big Dad but having a quarter of my health drain from me because I got hit with a pipe...really?). Certainly not up to the same quality as the first but it wasn't the same developer either so it was to be expected.

Here's a good video that goes more into depth about the issues with Infinite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc15KgfNJsw

So yeah, it's not me bitching or complaining over nothing...it just wasn't really that good of a game in a lot of aspects and failed to meet any of the original goals that we were shown multiple times. It was especially bad as a Bioshock game more importantly. For people, especially "professional" reviews to claim it was one of the greatest games ever made just made me shake my head in confusion.

/rant...*takes a breath*...

I liked the game.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
I liked the game.

Ha, I did too. Not nearly as much as the original BS, and certainly nowhere near SS1 or SS2. However, it still wasn't a bad game.

Also, I like how he classified his opinion as "objective". Perfectly entitled to an opinion, and I'm totally fine with it differing from my own, but come on, it's still just an opinion.

I guess I don't get all hyped up about what a game will be. I read enough about it to get a decent idea of what it is, and then call it good until I get it into my hands, or see enough bad press to NOT get it into my hands. Then I play it for what it is.

BioShock Infinite was good in that specific way. For what it was. Compare it to SS or BS1 and it will pale in comparison. Enjoy it as a pretty cool action game with some extras, and it looks a little better. I didn't find the enemies too spongey, (well, maybe a few,) but I always tended to find the resources I needed to play without too much trouble. Overall, it was decently fun.

The one thing I didn't like much about it was the setting. I like gritty dystopias more than utopian settings. It was also just too "turn of the century" for me. I liked the Art Deco 20s-40s setting of BS1. That spoke much more to me.

All in all, I'd rate it pretty well. Definitely worth playing once or twice, just not in the context of the other BS or SS games. Maybe not for everyone, but I'd hardly call it a bad game, or say it sucks.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
I like how he classified his opinion as "objective".

I didn't say my opinion or comment was objective...just that parts of the game are objectively bad and that I don't get how so much of it was just over looked in reviews as if these same things wouldn't have been pounded on if it was any other game.

Things like the voxaphones having vital important information that makes parts of the game sensible. That's objectively bad game design. To keep stuff that makes other stuff actually make sense instead of having the player go around the entire game wondering "how/what/who the hell..." is horrible no matter what game it is.

Aiming down the sights and aiming at the hip = the same accuracy is objectively bad. What's the point of having sight aiming if it doesn't matter?

And don't get me wrong...it certainly isn't the worst game ever made or anything. The first couple of hours were pretty good! It was just the entire thing afterwards that seemed to have lost focus, ambiance, and entertainment. Like I said, I did fall asleep playing it and that's not a good thing. Hell, thinking about it I think I downloaded a trainer for invincibility, unlimited ammo, and one hit kills just so I could bare to finish the damn thing. Even with all that though it still took way too long to finish haha!

So yeah, if you or others like it then cool! But as a Bioshock game, what we were shown, what I and many others rightfully expected based on previous games and expectations, it was a major let down.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
I didn't say my opinion or comment was objective...just that parts of the game are objectively bad and that I don't get how so much of it was just over looked in reviews as if these same things wouldn't have been pounded on if it was any other game.

Things like the voxaphones having vital important information that makes parts of the game sensible. That's objectively bad game design. To keep stuff that makes other stuff actually make sense instead of having the player go around the entire game wondering "how/what/who the hell..." is horrible no matter what game it is.

Aiming down the sights and aiming at the hip = the same accuracy is objectively bad. What's the point of having sight aiming if it doesn't matter?

And don't get me wrong...it certainly isn't the worst game ever made or anything. The first couple of hours were pretty good! It was just the entire thing afterwards that seemed to have lost focus, ambiance, and entertainment. Like I said, I did fall asleep playing it and that's not a good thing. Hell, thinking about it I think I downloaded a trainer for invincibility, unlimited ammo, and one hit kills just so I could bare to finish the damn thing. Even with all that though it still took way too long to finish haha!

So yeah, if you or others like it then cool! But as a Bioshock game, what we were shown, what I and many others rightfully expected based on previous games and expectations, it was a major let down.

Disagree completely. System Shock and BioShock had logs that were absolutely vital to the game. They started as RPGs more or less, and got more action oriented as time went on. What's the matter with making the player hunt things down to solve problems and answer questions? This isn't JUST an FPS.

Next item, this isn't a tactical shooter. It's a hybrid twitch-style shooter with some story and roleplaying elements tacked on. I've said this in other threads, but sight-based aiming is not always desirable, especially in this type of game. This is speculation on my part, but I would wager it's there just to make it more accessible to those that like to play that way. The predecessors, along with a lot of other games with similar heritage, do not use sight-base aiming, and I'm quite glad of it.

There are other games where that makes sense, and in those instances I think it's fine.

Obviously this game wasn't for you, and that's totally fine, but these are still very much your opinion and not objectively bad elements.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
Disagree completely. System Shock and BioShock had logs that were absolutely vital to the game. They started as RPGs more or less, and got more action oriented as time went on. What's the matter with making the player hunt things down to solve problems and answer questions? This isn't JUST an FPS.

Next item, this isn't a tactical shooter. It's a hybrid twitch-style shooter with some story and roleplaying elements tacked on. I've said this in other threads, but sight-based aiming is not always desirable, especially in this type of game. This is speculation on my part, but I would wager it's there just to make it more accessible to those that like to play that way. The predecessors, along with a lot of other games with similar heritage, do not use sight-base aiming, and I'm quite glad of it.

There are other games where that makes sense, and in those instances I think it's fine.

Obviously this game wasn't for you, and that's totally fine, but these are still very much your opinion and not objectively bad elements.

Oh, and I'm not trying to vigorously defend the game, as it definitely could have used some major improvements in some areas. Nor am I trying to make your opinions seem irrelevant. Just providing my own in contrast.
 

viscountalpha

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,591
Bioshock infinite was fun all the way up to the fight with Elizabeth's mom. From that point on, it felt rushed and shoddily ended. The story lost cohesion and it made me not want the dlc.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,118
Ken Levine honestly lost a lot of my respect after BS Infinite. I found the game to be pretty horrible honestly.

It was no original Bioshock but I enjoyed it quite a bit. Thought the story was intriguing and well-done. Combat was indeed plentiful but it was decent.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
I'm probably one of the few to find Infinite to be a superior game to Bioshock. (Though oddly I've beaten Bioshock twice and Infinite once). I just had more fun and enjoyed the plot more in infinite. Was it perfect? No, but I could hardly classify it as objectively bad.

Bioshock I don't care for because as far as I'm concerned it's merely a reimagined System Shock 2. There are a lot of parallels between the two, and I've always found SS2 to be the superior of the two. Infinite feels far more like its own thing though.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Disagree completely. System Shock and BioShock had logs that were absolutely vital to the game. They started as RPGs more or less, and got more action oriented as time went on. What's the matter with making the player hunt things down to solve problems and answer questions? This isn't JUST an FPS.

Ummm...not really? The logs in BS and SS2 were more back story, filler, character depth...not really things that if you didn't read them or listen to them you would completely miss out on some major stuff. So while IMPORTANT in BS and SS2 they weren't on the same level of necessity that they are in Infinite.

Next item, this isn't a tactical shooter. It's a hybrid twitch-style shooter with some story and roleplaying elements tacked on. I've said this in other threads, but sight-based aiming is not always desirable, especially in this type of game.

See, again, for something like SS2 I could see this being the case but considering that Infinite was, like, 95% killing things it has certainly crossed that "RPG" line and left it miles behind. So yeah, the aiming with sights vs. hip-firing is just a bad decision and not really worth anything. Bioshock 1 and 2 did just fine with hip firing without needing to try and trick people into thinking it was more than it was. So "tactical shooter"? No. But by far definitely a "shooter".

There are other games where that makes sense, and in those instances I think it's fine.

Have any examples? Most games where it wouldn't matter just stick to one aiming method (like Bioshock 1).

Obviously this game wasn't for you

Which is my point. It wasn't for me and yet there's no reason for that. Bioshock was for me. System Shock 2 was for me. So the fact that Infinite isn't for me tells me that something screwed up royally.

but these are still very much your opinion and not objectively bad elements.

All things considered they are still objectively bad. Voxaphone information being the type of information it is or could be in many instances is a bad decision. Having aiming modes not matter is stupid and a bad decision. I just don't see how that's my opinion. Now, granted, those things may not bother you but that doesn't take it out of the realm of still being a bad design.
 

roma

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
448
Ken Levine honestly lost a lot of my respect after BS Infinite. I found the game to be pretty horrible honestly.


Man I was psyched for that game. Then when it started and I "walked" on in trhe sunlight among the clouds I thought it was amazing for sure. Then it went right down the crapper and I stopped playing. The real test was that I went back to try it again and hated it even more. That's about then I stopped paying attention to game reviews
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
That's about then I stopped paying attention to game reviews

No shit, huh? Holy hell you couldn't go anywhere without reviews and users touting this as being the best game ever, GOTY, GOAT, etc. Was ridiculous. I never understood it. Yes, I didn't really care for the game but how people could sit there and say that stuff with a straight face I just didn't see it. I mean, I could see people liking the game but best ever? Come on...

But yeah, the beginning was pretty damn good. Like I said, first hour or two were enjoyable. But then it became rinse and repeat for the last several hours until the ridiculous ending.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,478
I didn't say my opinion or comment was objective...just that parts of the game are objectively bad and that I don't get how so much of it was just over looked in reviews as if these same things wouldn't have been pounded on if it was any other game.

Things like the voxaphones having vital important information that makes parts of the game sensible. That's objectively bad game design. To keep stuff that makes other stuff actually make sense instead of having the player go around the entire game wondering "how/what/who the hell..." is horrible no matter what game it is.

Aiming down the sights and aiming at the hip = the same accuracy is objectively bad. What's the point of having sight aiming if it doesn't matter?

And don't get me wrong...it certainly isn't the worst game ever made or anything. The first couple of hours were pretty good! It was just the entire thing afterwards that seemed to have lost focus, ambiance, and entertainment. Like I said, I did fall asleep playing it and that's not a good thing. Hell, thinking about it I think I downloaded a trainer for invincibility, unlimited ammo, and one hit kills just so I could bare to finish the damn thing. Even with all that though it still took way too long to finish haha!

So yeah, if you or others like it then cool! But as a Bioshock game, what we were shown, what I and many others rightfully expected based on previous games and expectations, it was a major let down.

Meh?

Honestly, its still your opinion and not fact. I played both BS and BS2 (never system shock, wasn't that lucky even though I'm an old gamer, its on my list to play).

Infinity was... Bioshock. It felt and played generally like the first one, the amount of character interaction was about the same but less memorable. Honestly, I felt like Bioshock was a disappointing, you interact with no one, you make one choice all game, when you finally run into someone that might face to face talk to you, they kill him off. So I don't at all understand most of your gripes with Infinity. The characters all felt the same, but you saw way more face to face, combat was more dynamic as you where not confined to an underground coffin.

As a sequel it was generally more of the same with minor tweaks. If you want to complain about a sequel changing so much it breaks the game, Dragon Age 2. Infinity, not so much.

Again, its subjective.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
I'm probably one of the few to find Infinite to be a superior game to Bioshock. (Though oddly I've beaten Bioshock twice and Infinite once). I just had more fun and enjoyed the plot more in infinite. Was it perfect? No, but I could hardly classify it as objectively bad.

Bioshock I don't care for because as far as I'm concerned it's merely a reimagined System Shock 2. There are a lot of parallels between the two, and I've always found SS2 to be the superior of the two. Infinite feels far more like its own thing though.
Yeah that's more or less my opinion. Bioshock felt like a slap to the face having played SS2. At least Infinite was trying to be original.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
See, to me while on the surface you're sorta right it isn't until you dig deeper into what you actually say that it's not quite right at all.

Infinity was... Bioshock.

It had Bioshock in the title and some special powers but that's about it over all.

was about the same but less memorable.

Do you not see that being a major deal though? Yes player interaction with other characters wasn't greater in BS compared to Infinite but it was BETTER. To me that's a MAJOR difference. Having bad vs. good interactions, no matter how often, makes all the difference in the world. The characters in Bioshock were well scripted, acted, made sense as to why they were there and what they were doing. All of these qualities seemingly escaped me in Infinite.

you interact with no one, you make one choice all game, when you finally run into someone that might face to face talk to you, they kill him off.

The isolation was a major part of the game. It was sort of it's "thing". The fact you're in the dead underwater city was the point. Choices? What difference did those make in Infinite? None. And even then there was like 2 choice the entire game. Bioshock at least gave you a different ending as to how you treated the Little Sisters and if you CHOSE to attack a Big Dad or not. Actually, thinking about it, Bioshock 1 had an infinite amount of choice over Infinite. As far as killing people off, again, at least in Bioshock they were more interesting, made sense for being there, etc.

The characters all felt the same, but you saw way more face to face, combat was more dynamic as you where not confined to an underground coffin.

The characters felt FAR from the same. That's not even debatable. Infinites characters were no where near as good as Bioshocks...at least I can't think of any (maybe the twins but, eh, they didn't really do anything for me). As far as combat being dynamic I used a single gun (the semi-auto rifle) and barely used the Elixirs during my entire play through of Infinite. Why? Because the combat was so undynamic that I didn't need to. Not to mention the fact that you could only carry two weapons, had no time or opportunity to plan your attack, etc made Infinite hardly anything more than a run and gun mindless shooter.

I think you should go play Bioshock 1 again then play Infinite right afterwards. I feel like the differences are a lot more major then you're remembering.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
At least Infinite was trying to be original.

How, if you don't mind me asking? The story was pretty basic and could be said to be a rip off of many a sci-fi stories. At least it was no better or worse or different in coolness or lameness compared to Bioshocks. Other than that the game play and what not was more of a dumbed down Bioshock really. Maybe Elizabeth following you made it a little different but over all her interactivity and point of being there was pretty poor.
 

melteye

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2000
Messages
1,851
Ken Levine honestly lost a lot of my respect after BS Infinite. I found the game to be pretty horrible honestly.

I very much disliked the game. I got a lot of shit for saying so.

If someone is upset about me not liking the game, go fuck yourself. I don't see why it matters so much to anyone.
 

melteye

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2000
Messages
1,851
What was so bad about Bioshock Infinite? I thought it was great. People bitch way too much about games these days.

He disliked one game so he much be one of those people that bitches about gaming in general. Is that how it works? ;-) There are plenty of games I enjoy, Bioshock Infinite was not one of them.
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,694
He disliked one game so he much be one of those people that bitches about gaming in general. Is that how it works? ;-) There are plenty of games I enjoy, Bioshock Infinite was not one of them.

To me it's more that one disliked game loses all the respect garnered from BS and SS2. Personally it seems a disproportionate reaction to the given situation is all. Of course that is his perogative.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
I very much disliked the game. I got a lot of shit for saying so.

If someone is upset about me not liking the game, go fuck yourself. I don't see why it matters so much to anyone.

You're completely free to not like the game, but if you think I'm not going to respond to the conversation in a FORUM (FOR DISCUSSING THINGS) then you can go fuck yourself too.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
Also, saying a game is objectively bad, and then listing a bunch of opinions on mechanics that one doesn't like is... ...how shall I put this... SUBJECTIVE. Duh. Look it up. You can feel however you want about something, but that doesn't make it a fact. It doesn't even make it a widely held opinion. Still though, his opinion is as valid as mine. I just don't see why the distinction between the two doesn't make sense to a few people in here.

Also, yes, there was absolutely vital information in logs in System Shock 1. In System Shock 2 there were less, and while maybe not game-stalling, were pretty damned important for things like access codes, getting certain weapons, finding your way around the Von Braun, etc. Maybe you need to replay the series. I've played both within the last year.

Also, I actually didn't find myself hindered by that at all in Infinite. I only listened to a percentage of those logs, and still made it through. I found Infinite to be much more "handed to you" than any of the previous games.

Still, it definitely wasn't an objectively bad game. It is however a game that I would say largely depends on your tastes, and did depart slightly from the previous game (as did Bioshock 1, and even System Shock 2.)
 

cinnamonandgravy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
268
ss2 was and still is supreme.

bioshock was a dumbed down ss2, but the atmosphere is superb and the fps mechanics were pretty decent for the time.

bioshock 2 was just a half assed cash grab.

infinite didnt have anywhere near the atmosphere of bioshock 1, and the fps mechanics felt stale.

(ps and for good measure, fuck half life 2 :) game gets way more praise than it deserves)
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,146
ss2 was and still is supreme.

bioshock was a dumbed down ss2, but the atmosphere is superb and the fps mechanics were pretty decent for the time.

bioshock 2 was just a half assed cash grab.

infinite didnt have anywhere near the atmosphere of bioshock 1, and the fps mechanics felt stale.

(ps and for good measure, fuck half life 2 :) game gets way more praise than it deserves)

I didn't enjoy HL2 as much as 1. I know what it is like around here with it being praised and worshipped but I just wasn't impressed. It was a good game don't get me wrong, just felt didn't have the same fun and overwhelming feel the first did.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,296
uhm ok. however, this is all I can think of when I remember playing bioshock infinite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_u18_BKczg
omg rofl. I have not seen that before; so true.
I didn't enjoy HL2 as much as 1. I know what it is like around here with it being praised and worshipped but I just wasn't impressed. It was a good game don't get me wrong, just felt didn't have the same fun and overwhelming feel the first did.

HL1 definitely better than HL2. The atmosphere was so rich in the first.

Ravenholm was the pinnacle of #2 for me.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Bioshock at least gave you a different ending as to how you treated the Little Sisters and if you CHOSE to attack a Big Dad or not.
What are you talking about? I thought the game wouldn't let you progress unless you kill some of the big daddies.

How, if you don't mind me asking? The story was pretty basic and could be said to be a rip off of many a sci-fi stories.
Okay, I should clarify saying Bioshock Infinite was trying to be original COMPARED TO BIOSHOCK. Bioshock Infinite didn't take characters from an existing game, copy their exact same roles and arc paths, copy the same plot, a very similar situation, copy some of the same level designs, and pacing of the whole game. Bioshock DID. Again, having played System Shock 2, Bioshock was a slap to the face. It was like watching a murder mystery movie where you already know who the killer is because you saw the movie this is copying, except the original did it better, despite having less of a budget.
At least it was no better or worse or different in coolness or lameness compared to Bioshocks.
This statement would only be true if System Shock 2 never existed. Since it does however, it makes the "lameness" rating for Bioshock a 10/10 in my book. Bioshock was essentially "let's copy everything from System Shock 2 even though it made more sense in that game, put it in a different setting, then make things not as cohesive and more forced, dumb down the gameplay a lot, and tack on some Atlas Shrugged overtones." But hey, better graphics!
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
What are you talking about? I thought the game wouldn't let you progress unless you kill some of the big daddies.

Well you have to kill one in the beginning I believe? I didn't think it was necessary. Regardless, Bioshock still had more choices and those choices actually made a difference. So BS was wayyy more a head in this instance than Infinite could ever imagine being.

Okay, I should clarify saying Bioshock Infinite was trying to be original COMPARED TO BIOSHOCK. Bioshock Infinite didn't take characters from an existing game, copy their exact same roles and arc paths, copy the same plot, a very similar situation, copy some of the same level designs, and pacing of the whole game. Bioshock DID. Again, having played System Shock 2, Bioshock was a slap to the face. It was like watching a murder mystery movie where you already know who the killer is because you saw the movie this is copying, except the original did it better, despite having less of a budget.

Dude, the over all plot of Infinite was nearly identical to Bioshock in the first place. That was kind of the point. Booker and Elizabeth...Big Dad and Little Sisters...so to say Infinite was different isn't really the case. It certainly wasn't better than Bioshock just because it had some convoluted story.

This statement would only be true if System Shock 2 never existed. Since it does however, it makes the "lameness" rating for Bioshock a 10/10 in my book. Bioshock was essentially "let's copy everything from System Shock 2 even though it made more sense in that game, put it in a different setting, then make things not as cohesive and more forced, dumb down the gameplay a lot, and tack on some Atlas Shrugged overtones." But hey, better graphics!

And Infinite doesn't? At least Bioshock made freakin sense as to what had happened and what was happening in it's world. Infinite had so many holes and things that didn't need to be there (like the Elixirs) but were because "Bioshock". Come on now. That's being disingenuous at best and outright hypocritical at worst.

Just because Infinites story was more ridiculous doesn't make it unique or special. Half of it didn't even stick to it's own rules and the statement of the game was all over the place. It was a mess...an absolute fucking mess.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Point made. People bitch too much.

What point? You know there's a difference between "bitching" and constructive criticism, right? Get your head out of the ground and stop looking at stuff as being so black and white. I think the game had a ton of issues and was boring...how is that bitching exactly? Can people not have opinions in your little world? Do you never complain about anything? Do you just love every game you ever play? Nothing ever bad happen to you in your life or something?

What a ridiculous statement, I mean really, grow up.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
ss2 was and still is supreme.

bioshock was a dumbed down ss2, but the atmosphere is superb and the fps mechanics were pretty decent for the time.

bioshock 2 was just a half assed cash grab.

infinite didnt have anywhere near the atmosphere of bioshock 1, and the fps mechanics felt stale.

(ps and for good measure, fuck half life 2 :) game gets way more praise than it deserves)

Ha! :D

I agree mostly. Especially about BS2. (piece of garbage)

However, I'll give Infinite a teaspoon more credit than you, and as far as HL2 goes... I actually enjoyed it. It's not the pinnacle of shooting like a lot of people will say (for me at least) but in no way do I think it's a bad game. Ravenholm kinda lifts the rest of the game up higher than I'd otherwise rate the whole experience. Ravenholm is up there among my favorite moments in games. Still, yeah, not the best game in the universe by any stretch. I think System Shock 1 gets that honor in my book. (at least on most days... My opinions shift slightly based on what I'm playing, how long it's been since I've played something, etc.)
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,860
What point? You know there's a difference between "bitching" and constructive criticism, right?

I wouldn't say you've been bitching. However, I do think you've overstated a few things, and presented some subjective opinions as fact. That's all I'd argue against anyway. Doesn't really matter all that much anyway. One man's waste, is another man's soap... right guys? :p

Bioshock Infinite aside, I think it's nice that Ken said some nice things about SS3, and I'm pretty fucking excited to see what they do with it. Plus he's not even involved with this, and who knows, maybe he'll start up a studio, come up with some fresh ideas, and blow everyone away. Then again, maybe not.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Well you have to kill one in the beginning I believe? I didn't think it was necessary. Regardless, Bioshock still had more choices and those choices actually made a difference. So BS was wayyy more a head in this instance than Infinite could ever imagine being.
It's splitting hairs. You have exactly 2 choices in Bioshock: kill little girls or don't. That's some deep grey area right there! Bioshock Infinite was just a straight up linear game. So yes, it had less choice, but Bioshock had such a black and white choice with no subtlety at all, it didn't really factor into my evaluation of them anyway.


Dude, the over all plot of Infinite was nearly identical to Bioshock in the first place. That was kind of the point. Booker and Elizabeth...Big Dad and Little Sisters...so to say Infinite was different isn't really the case. It certainly wasn't better than Bioshock just because it had some convoluted story.
I'm not saying Infinite had the most original story in the world, I'm saying it's much MORE original than Bioshock. Infinite had paradoxes, portals into alternate realities, time jumping, stuff neither Bioshock nor SS2 had. Yes, it's convoluted and just starts making up things as it goes, but at least it was not the EXACT SAME damn plot mechanics as Bioshock and SS2. Elizabeth wasn't only communicating to you on radio, only to find out she was assuming the identity of someone else and found out the villain all along was she?

And Infinite doesn't? At least Bioshock made freakin sense as to what had happened and what was happening in it's world. Infinite had so many holes and things that didn't need to be there (like the Elixirs) but were because "Bioshock". Come on now. That's being disingenuous at best and outright hypocritical at worst.

Just because Infinites story was more ridiculous doesn't make it unique or special. Half of it didn't even stick to it's own rules and the statement of the game was all over the place. It was a mess...an absolute fucking mess.
I think you're misinterpreting me as saying Infinite was a great game or something, I'm not. I'm saying it was more original than Bioshock. I mean let's go down the list, Infinite did NOT have the following:

-A claustrophobic area composed of distinct chambers
-A medical bay level gone awry
-A botanical gardens level gone awry (I guess we'll give a free pass for the shuttle bay v. subway level comparison)
-ghosts re-enacting character deaths
-performing research on enemies in order to do more damage to them
-Sentry robots and security cameras that require hacking mini-games to disable
-almost entirely silent protagonist
-almost no survivors you talk to directly
-A disaster situation at the beginning that you have to flee to safety from
-A character masquerading as someone else who communicates to you only via radio, then turns out to be the villain
-The same masquerading character giving you orders that you're compelled to follow due to some sort of blackmail mechanism, something they've been using against you this entire time from the beginning of the game.
-A clear 2/3 game midpoint where you change the focus of your struggle away from your previous enemy towards the new villain, your former guide, complete with a boss battle with them.

Bioshock had all these things, as did System Shock 2. Bioshock Infinite didn't. I think you just don't get how much Bioshock copied System Shock 2 if you think it was more ORIGINAL than Infinite. If 99% of people in Columbia were mutants, Elizabeth only communicated to you via radio, ended up being the songbird in disguise, and you never saw her until the end, then yeah, I could see the argument for it being less original.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Bioshock had all these things, as did System Shock 2. Bioshock Infinite didn't. I think you just don't get how much Bioshock copied System Shock 2 if you think it was more ORIGINAL than Infinite.

Did I say that BS1 was more original than Infinite? Considering the parallels between BS1 and SS2 I don't think I see it that way. My point is that BS1 has wayyyy more content and stuff to see, do, and explore than Infinite could ever imagine.

The only way I see Infinite being more original or different is just because it LACKS so much and is so dumbed down in comparison that I don't even consider it, really, a true Shock game...Bio or System.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Did I say that BS1 was more original than Infinite? Considering the parallels between BS1 and SS2 I don't think I see it that way. My point is that BS1 has wayyyy more content and stuff to see, do, and explore than Infinite could ever imagine.

The only way I see Infinite being more original or different is just because it LACKS so much and is so dumbed down in comparison that I don't even consider it, really, a true Shock game...Bio or System.
Well first you asked me to clarify, then I was building off this statement:

Dude, the over all plot of Infinite was nearly identical to Bioshock in the first place. That was kind of the point. Booker and Elizabeth...Big Dad and Little Sisters...so to say Infinite was different isn't really the case.
I'm saying however identical Infinite may look to Bioshock to you, it doesn't hold a CANDLE to how identical Bioshock was to System Shock 2. Another way to look at it is I think The Hangover 3 is a more original movie than The Hangover 2. Bioshock for me is The Hangover 2, except even closer to the source material. While I didn't think much of the gameplay, I enjoyed Infinite more than Bioshock if just for the fact that I didn't already know what the story was because it wasn't straight up copying another game. You say it had a lot more content, but not for me, I had already seen most of what it was doing in SS2.
 
Top