BioShock 2 Comments by Tom Bramwell

Really excited about this. It sounds like it's going to be a great game to me.

Bioshock was the most disappointing game of 2007 for me. The story, atmosphere and level design were all excellent but the actual gameplay was average at best. If ever a game needed a regenerative health system, this was it. I mean, it would work perfectly in the context of the plot but, no, they just had to go down the 'health pack' road. That actually works in games like Resident Evil 5 or Half-Life where you have a level of control over the pace and balance of combat but here it just felt completely wrong because many of the enemies - particularly the Big Daddies - were so fast and lethal and your attacks next to useless against them. As a result, the early parts of the game in particular were simply a series of drawn-out battles of attrition where you'd just attack a Big Daddy, die, attack the Big Daddy again, die, finally kill the Big Daddy, carry on. I really wanted to like Bioshock as, from a production point-of-view, it was truly sensational but, as a game, it was badly flawed.

@AgentCool

Nah, I just think you're not very good at it ;-)

Played through on normal with Vita Chambers turned off; it's certainly doable. Yes, at the beginning the Big Daddy fights were tricky, but they became really easy later on with upgraded equipment.

I guess you're approaching this as an FPS (as does Coin-Op), which it simply isn't.

@Co-Op
I liked the first game even though it had a really shit last boss and a whole bunch of useless plasmids + kinda shitty gun play for a FPS. And oh yeah the replay value was zero. It also had those crappy mini games that you had to repeat about 10 million times. And a really lame inventory system that had you juggling all kinds of ammo all the time.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? Na I kid all pretty valid points. I loved the game up to the twist then things went down hell then underground at the final boss. It had some brillant set pieces and some nice steath references to other games, after you work out the vita chamber are a free rez then the horror falls away and even need to really care about ammo/eve.

That said I can't say anything till I either see a review or get it in my hands, so far it looks pretty much just Bioshock 1.5 to be honest

@ Yossarian

Right on!

Also, is your rant on this site somewhere? I'd love to have a read.. : )

Nope. It's nearly two years old now, but...

http://streetlightsasfairgrounds.blogspo...

Hmm.. as far as rants go thats a pretty well constructed one!

I'm also in the camp of "I'm not sure we really need another Bioshock", a rehash of the style and tone of the original just wouldn't really effect me the same. I never replayed the game, mainly because I played it so thoughroughly the first time, took in pretty much everything the world had to offer.
The story for me was quite a driving force behind the original, I ignored the simplistic mechanics for a game that tried to have a narrative flow and a much more inventive one than normal in computer games.

The last third of the game did like you say in your 'rant' quite badly undermine everything it was saying previously in the game, a weak willed man for example might have just fallen in line behind Atlas/Fontaine, regardless of how powerful he'd become.

I'll keep my eye on this game but part of me feels like I've already dismissed it, the story played itself out and I'm not really sure what revisiting it is going to bring me.

One of my buzz-phrases for this brand is 'an indictment of extremism'

That sounds very pretentious to me. And does a fan of any game or film or book ever call it a 'brand'?

Yoss: Mogwai reference? I read that article a while back, wuz good.

'One of my buzz-phrases for this brand is 'an indictment of extremism'

That sounds very pretentious to me. And does a fan of any game or film or book ever call it a 'brand'? '

How is that pretentious? Cos it tries to deal with a relatively broad and common socio-cultural motif, that of 'fuck extremism'? It might end up being bad, but that doesn't necessarily entail that it is pretentious.

I'd rather see it set elsewhere as well, but ...

At least they've hinted that the underwater setting will actually make someuse of being underwater this time. The first game could have been set anywhere, they made no gameplay use of being at the bottom of the sea.

It's pretentious because that's the in-thing to say to describe Bioshock.

There's always CoD4 - No pretentions to being anything other than a linear shooter there. Hallelujah!

Zzzzzzz

@rhinooxious
The first game could have been set anywhere, they made no gameplay use of being at the bottom of the sea.

True, but it looked bloody fantastic from an artistic perspective and really helped with the immersion (if you'll pardon the pun). Being trapped down there (knowing there was an ocean of water above you preventing you from getting out) was certainly atmospheric.

I must say, this sounds pretty poor. 10 years on and the place hasn't flooded? 10 years on and the splicers are still knocking about? Why haven't they killed each other? What do they eat? What the fuck do they do down there anyway? What's Dr Tenebaum still doing down there?

I've never really liked the gameplay mechanics based around the little sister/big daddy relationship. The much vaunted 'moral dilemnas' around harvesting in the first game were pretty poorly done, and as such you could completely avoid the situation for the most part. Big daddy's were quite intimidating to begin with, but by the end I was such a hunk of beef I could slap them around for fun. The escort missions (as everyone says) were an exercise in rubbish game design and the thought of the sequel revolving around all of these just puts me off a bit. I imagine the tag line this time will be 'This time, you're the big Daddy!' Poor.

I would have preferred a prequel, set as suggested, at the beginning of the 'troubles'. I also would have preferred less emphasis on out and out violence and a more tense, thrilling and more variably populated experience, more akin to a survival horror. Seeing NPC's 'living in rapture and being caught up in the madness to wind up on your own would have been perfect. Being able to use plasmids AND a gun is hardly a ground breaking step.

Saying that, I absolutely loved the setting of the Bioshock universe and think it's great in any medium, the story was well delivered through use of audio snippets and as such, the atmosphere was ace. I am also speculating heavily on a game that's not even out yet, so I shall reserve judgement until it's released.

TTFN

I wonder if they will go all bruhaha with the ''choices'' again. It was a nice game, but the whole moral part was so hilariously bad. If it was a movie I'd have given it a 1/10. Maybe I'd get a a cult following, due to it's crappiness appeal.

*edit* SS2 shits on bioshock from very very great heights.

I was hoping that for the sequel they'd deal with issues like how the wider world reacts to the plasmid technology. But instead it seems like they're trying to re-hash the original by dragging you back down to Rapture.

"The kind of levels that we want to put you in are more about the old Warren Spector/Looking Glass dichotomy of problems rather than puzzles,"

The single only fact that has me somewhat excted about this game. With the guy who designed Fort Frolic and The Cradle (two of the best levels ever) at the helm, it's going to take a lot to make this shit, but I kind of get the feeling it will be anyway.

@ Yossarian

I recall reading your "rant" a year or two back. Good stuff - would like to see more. Do you write regularly for any sites?

I'd like to see Big Daddy versus Giant Green Lantern in the next Bioshock.

Cynicism is so hip. It totally makes people look smart too.

OMG!!!! Oracle bought Sun!

I'm sure this will end up a lot more interesting to play than the usual insipid console crap.

@miiiguel: I kno! lulz!1

Sunacle?

Orasun(d bridge)?

Will this splicing cause PL/SQL and Java to mutate together into some kind of unstoppable monster? On topic see!

Dear Oracle would you kindly leave my Solaris alone ?

/Googles for a DBA plasmid... or else will be out of coinzzzz.

You know I saw a copy of Atlas Shrugged in Waterstones the other day and... fuck me! It's huge! I'd need to take a week off.

@Azazel
It is huge, but well worth a read. There's one speech that goes on for about 50 pages of tiny print, which is a bit of a challenge to stick with, but she's such a good writer that you hardly notice how long the book is for most of the time.

interesting, yet slippery potential...

@Bremenacht

"And does a fan of any game or film or book ever call it a 'brand'?"

That is just the sort of phrase that people working in the business might use. I will frequently refer to games as "product" in certain situations. It doesn't mean that I don't care about the content, it just means I see the broader picture and know that the end result has to sell as well as be artistically valid.

Please lets not start trying to throw up these tired them-and-us, "all they care about is the dollar", "only real fans know what is right" attitudes. The guys making Bioshock almost certainly care about making a game that is GOOD as well as saleable. Don't forget, they were all fans well before any of us had even heard of Bioshock.

"Cynicism is so hip. It totally makes people look smart too."

Heehee, good work :)

Man they could not have picked a better director for this game I think, after reading this interview. He thoroughly gets it, and I hope that shines through in the final product. I remain skeptical, but not as much as before, I think this fellow can definitely follow op on Bioshock in a worthy, non cash-in way.

I hate how every game aspiring to a certain intellectual level is dismissed as pretentious by some people.
Woe is the video game medium.

After reading this and the article in this months gamesTM, I have total faith in this team. They know what made the Bioshock great, have ideas that doesn't read like a simple rehash of the first game and look to improve in the gameplay department.

I'm not too worried about escort missions. The gamesTM article says how the developers knows the escort missions from the 1st game were probably the least enjoyable for gamers and they're looking at a number of ways to improve upon it.

starbug1978:

"Isn't it *Atlas* Shrugged?"

As explained on the Editor's blog, I am a charlatan and an idiot. Thank you for pointing it out - I have corrected it.

morriss:

"Vita Chambers? Are they in the game?"

They didn't talk to me specifically about it (and I forgot to ask, because I was too busy trying to disguise the fact I had no idea what I was doing), but I think there was something in the Game Informer piece about a similar mechanic. Go look it up - you or Pat probably have the scans, and then you can do a post on vg247 ;-)

A lot of folks:

"That bloody escort mission!"

I thought that too, but the reason I didn't dwell on it too much in the text is that it wasn't possible to gauge just how much of a likeness there is between the way BS2 wants to play out and how that part of BS1 did. What I would say though is that I think there's something innate about Jordan, Zak etc.'s understanding of BS1 through and through. They get the minute significance of key things about BS1 that should buy them the right to reveal more about the game later without suspicion falling on them about that yet, in my book.

I personally reckon it'd be way more interesting to follow on from the first game's "bad ending"... But whatever.

I'm so cynical that everything is pointless.

i don't know if I can play another game that is a rehash of the original System Shock, i dunno, the template is just too familiar now

@ Yossarian

I recall reading your "rant" a year or two back. Good stuff - would like to see more. Do you write regularly for any sites?

I don't, but then I've never tried. Occasionally I get the urge to write lengthy things about stories in games and how they do and don't work. The Bioshock thing is one of the few times I've acted on that urge.

What's your occupation? Literary? Academic?

From what I can remember of it, that article wouldn't have looked out of place on Gamasutra.

@kangarootoo

The amount of tat on shop shelves suggests that 'artistic validity' is not often a concern when making games. Where it is, it's often used as a crutch to support a weak game - making up for something lacking. Bioshock was neither. It was a unique game, presenting cohesive gameplay, story and imagery. I don't give a toss whether it's not as good as a previous game, or that it uses an unpopular gameplay mechanic at some point, or that it gives up it's secret a bit early - KOTOR did that too, and I don't recall seeing many complaints about that.

What I do give a toss about is reading some high-brow bullshit bingo quality copy from it's developers. Maybe it's Tom's fault - he doesn't seem entirely comfortable with the article. However ignorant of Ayn Rand he claims to be, I'm sure I'm even more ignorant of her work than he his (I must be - I'm a cynic after all). Writing from this position of ignorance, the developers seem to me to already be eulogising their new development off the back of the old. That seemed arrogant to me, although Tom's recent comment has tempered my point of view.

FEAR2 keeps springing to mind for some reason - a game critically hampered by the purity of it's predecessor.

"It is huge, but well worth a read. There's one speech that goes on for about 50 pages of tiny print, which is a bit of a challenge to stick with, but she's such a good writer that you hardly notice how long the book is for most of the time."

...and here's a different opinion: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/26/...

@ AgentCool

I never had that problem. On my first (and only) play through of BioShock, I was sent back to a Vita Chamber all of four or five times. I found that imaginative use of plasmids and the environment (hacking sentry bots and turrets and so forth) allowed me to tackle Big Daddies well enough. Early on it was tough, but I still usually won without dying.

@ Mugwum

What about my closeted - corseted suggestion/correction? Or did I get that one wrong? ; )


At any rate, the whole idea of a Bioshock sequel got off on well and truly on the wrong foot with me. When I first heard it was happening, I didn't like the idea (thinking: the first one was a completed narrative, could only be soured by further exposition etc) and then . . hearding it was subtitled 'Sea of Dreams', my opinion sunk lower. That title reminds me of nothing more than the parents' 1950s Americana school prom in Back to the Future! : ) Either that or a Mills and Boon telemovie (if such a thing exists..) I was ready to hate.

However, reading this article, and analysing Jordan Thomas' words and intention, I'm holding out hope. Because I never felt that I didn't want to return to the world Bioshock, I just felt that I'd rather have nothing at all than have a dull, uninspired sequel. It looks like, with any luck, Bioshock 2 will be neither.

If this can capture the darkness, the creeping, unsettling horror of the first one, improve the gameplay where possible but still really focus on the story, that would be awesome in by book. I want -more- RGP elements. It was a big downer for me that you could just pick up any weapon you found and use it. Having been a fan of SystemShock 2, a huge part of the joy of that game was that it had classes. If you went for a soldier-type, you could level up quickly to using shotguns, rifles and rocket launchers. If you were a psychic, you'd have to rely much more on pistols, however you had magic instead. Same sort of pro/con choices with going the tech route.

Ken Levine said in an interview (on the Bioshock bonus DVD) he made a conscious design change during development of Bioshock to 'open the game up for the player, to be less restrictive' and . . well . . I didn't like it. I feel that if you force players to make choices, like by saying 'you can only choose one out of the big crazy gun and the awesome crazy plasmid', then it's more rewarding. I know if I make that choice, I'll place more value on the gun or the magic I've gone with.

So, I guess in that way, I'd like it if Bioshock2 was more like System Shock 2. I'd like a smidge more 'RGPness' along with my shooting and storytelling. : )

Apparently, I can't stop typing today..

Masterstroke of Bioshock 1? The audiobooks. Reading everyone's logs in Systems Shock 2 was amazing - back in 1999, I'd certainly never experienced that kind of storytelling in an FP game, and it worked so well. In Bioshock, being able to have the same experience without it stopping you or making you access a menu was better still. Listening to the mournful voice of a dead person describing their last days, while standing in their home, among their personal effects and the hard evidence that what was being described had in fact transpired, was at once harrowing, compelling and beautiful. Those audiobooks were such a huge part of the Bioshock experience, for me.

On Bioshock 2 and Multiplayer:

I'd really rather they focus on the single player experience, but . . . . if they're doing mutliplayer, what about a co-op mode where one person is the Big Daddy and other a Little Sister? It's a pretty obvious way to go, but executed right it could be gripping. As for competitive multi, they could do something in the vein of Fat Princess with (say) four players per team, three either big daddies/sisters and one playing a Little Sister, who has to be escorted across an area safely by either running herself or climbing onto the backs of her teammates. Maybe whoever's carrying her can use the Adam stored in her syringe? Possibilities abound. However, trying to create and balance such modes would probably just detract from the main game, and could cheapen the atmosphere a bit .. I'd likely be happier if they scrapped any idea of team multiplayer and just delivered a knockout singleplayer game. It's what sold the first one, after all!

It could be good but withought an evil right wing bitch as counterpoint then it loses some of its hook.

Still some people would be wise to remember that system shock 2 was far more of a traditional sequel in some ways than this one. At least this one has a differant antagonist.

Also its EA i believe who own the liscence to the system shock brand, id trust them to make the game but not the narrative.

@Bremenacht

I an as allergic to highbrow hyperbole as anyone, I was specifically leaping in to try and stop the use of the word "brand" by the developer colouring the whole discussion.

As for whether the devs are eulogising BS1, it was a very well regarded game for the most part so I think it is fair for them to assume it was good AND therefore base the sequel in part on the things that were deemed to have worked in the first installment. They may be blowing their trumpets a little early, but as to whether it is arrogant or not.... I don't much care. Its not a personal insult aimed at any of us, so what does it matter? They are bound to want to evangelise about their new PRODUCT ;)


@Reihn

I pretty much agree. I got multiple playthroughs out of SS2 purely as a result of their varying character paths. BS by comparison felt pretty unvaried. In particular the weapons, which could ALL be fully upgraded if you hunted around enough (a result of the achievement system perhaps?).

I really enjoyed BS1, but certain aspects of it weren't as deep as SS2 and for me that was a bad thing. However, for many others it would have been the right thing and we all have to recognise that the sucess and growth of gaming has changed it, not for worse but just into something else. Its always been the case, and I am sure there are people who were teens in the early who frowned on the direction games were taking circa late80s/early 90s.

What's your occupation? Literary? Academic?

From what I can remember of it, that article wouldn't have looked out of place on Gamasutra.

BA in Philosophy/MA in Creative Writing, now I do freelance copywriting.


Ken Levine said in an interview (on the Bioshock bonus DVD) he made a conscious design change during development of Bioshock to 'open the game up for the player, to be less restrictive' and . . well . . I didn't like it. I feel that if you force players to make choices, like by saying 'you can only choose one out of the big crazy gun and the awesome crazy plasmid', then it's more rewarding. I know if I make that choice, I'll place more value on the gun or the magic I've gone with.

There's a lengthy thread on GAF at the moment about Bethesda RPGs/Fallout 3, and those of us who dislike them have attacked this kind of design philosophy as well. Most modern devs seem to be terrified of putting restrictions or limitations on the content the 'average player' will experience, and so allow their players to do everything in one playthrough, doing their best to shepherd them through any obstacles which might result in them switching the game off in frustration... which renders any purported 'choices' about character development/role-playing pretty inconsequential. I suspect this is a fairly recent trend (last five-ten years).

Has anyone considered the possibility that by agreeing to set up 2K Marin to work on Bioshock 2 it will enable Kev Levine and other team members to work on something new that 2K might not have geenlit otherwise...

@ Vertical Stand

Short answer: Yes.

We're all aware the Ken's working on an unannounced project. Which is exciting, but not worth getting excited about just yet - it's gonna be a long while before we're playing his next game!

I wonder if it'll be something with the Xcom license . . all I want is a modern remake of the original. Must. Be. Turn based. : )

Edit But yeah - more to your point . . I suppose thats true. I should hope that the success of Bioshock, a being new, 'different' game, will have given him a lot of credibility in the eyes of the folk who make financial decisions. It's really nice that Bioshock sold so well, as often studios and publishers seem overly obsessed with "Triple A sequels'" to "proven I.P."

spekkah: After stealing and raping Rand's philosophy, I surmise that the next game will probably revolve around freeing Plato from his cave. And then they'll get lots of awards and pats on their backs for yet another philosophical masterpiece in gaming. Oh well, at least they're trying.

By quite some way the best comment I have ever seen on EG.

I know this has been said many, many times before; but they should have done a prequel :(

The ONLY thing that could have supplemented Bioshock's philosophical and narrative canon is by seeing the initial demise of rapture at the hand of those turning into monsters and changing their environment to reflect their inner torment.

Would have been awesome - the player could have been the last decent man trying to escape to a sub. I honestly can't see why they skipped over this opportunity.

NO NO NO!

It's as if they wrote down everything that would make a good, worthy sequel to Bioshock - and then did the exact opposite. Everything I read sounds like design by sickening marketing execs (think of the TV execs from The Simpsons).

Big Daddies are cool, yeah? But what if we made one a CHICK? Yeah, she's be, like, all sexy and fast and stuff. And you have to fight her, like, constantly, but you can't kill her until the end of the game. AWESOME!

And Rapture, that place freakin' ROCKED, dude. Make up a whole bunch of new places for it! I don't care that absolutely no mention of them would've been made in the first game, people want more!

This sounds like a total disaster. Constant, pointless attacks from a baddie that you won't be able to kill. Infuriating protection missions. A nonsensical plot (so a Little Sister didn't 'take' to the surface? And no mention of this was made in the ending for the first?) mixed with incredibly tenuous links to the original (so, what, we're going to somehow visit all these places that were completely disconnected from the rest of the city that we explored in the first game?) and a focus on the appalling combat instead of the exploration and discovery?

Oh, and as for the ending... Levine is a putz if that's true. Those who played System Shock 2 will remember the complete travesty that was the ending for that, if Levine loves his games so much why does he allow it to keep happening? Oh wait, perhaps because Bioshock was nothing more than SS2 in an art deco skin, all the elements had to remain the same, including a shit ending. Yes.

@Reihn fair enough, maybe I worded my post poorly but it was more of a response to many who seem to think the game is somehow exempt from market realities, no reason why a sequel shouldn't be made, when other more left field titles get follow ups. its the first big success of a regrouped studio when previous offerings like System Shock titles fared less well, so why not position it as a base franchise to allow other games to be approved.

I have to agree with others that the set up is laboured even by sequel standards so I hope the game is at least self aware about this, possibly through Big Sister dialogue and actions in the game.

@TheComedian yeah I agree with you and others about that idea of playing during the fall of Rapture into ruin, but reworking existing routines, texture work is probably a lot cheaper and I suspect 'conservative' sequels sell better to the wider audience who bought Bioshock. Also I reckon others who never bought the original but noted the praise it received will pick up on the large amount of coverage for this sequel and will be drawn to a game similar to the previous one.

The other less cynical side of this is that )and the most promising parts of the preview interview snippets give this impression) is they can explore their own preoccupations and themes that they may not have been able to do otherwise.