The lights are on
Any hardcore Bioshock fan will love this, anyone who is amused with monotonous casual gameplay probably cant fathom what an amazing sequel this really is.
Bioshock got knocked too hard for silly reasons. Why is it that a game like MW2 gets an awesome rating for changing very little about the game to set it apart from its last 200 sequels, while Bioshock 2 has far more innovation and a fresh new storline and gets a lower score because the surroundings are too similair? Youre still in rapture after all, anything else would have seemed out of place. Its not like you were gonna travel to ANOTHER UNDERWATER DYSTOPIA. And the complaint that you didnt feel overly powerful til the end, isnt that how ALL games work? No character starts off as an unstoppable force, so why is it all of a sudden a bad thing? And then there was the complaint about the hacking. How much fun did you really have stopping to play a pipe-dream mini game evey three minutes and interrupting the action? Probably not much. Also, there was the complaint that the underwater sequences were too short. Let me ask you this, if all the splicers in a room die when it floods, what all could there possibly be to do exactly? Not much. The underwater sequences are fun, but this is an action game after all, and with no action goin on, i can imagine most of us would become bored during these sequences..
This is an amazing game. The graphics are wonderful and suit the game well, and the gameplay is a fast and furious blast with much mystery to behold. If you liked the first Bioshock you will love number 2. Im very disappointed that it recieved a lower GI rating for reasons that didnt really make sense in the first place.
Im with you. GI confused and angered me with this rating. It seems any game with stellar multi player will get a high rating even if the main story was lacking quite a bit (MW2, thank you for pointing that out). GI seems to be only rating games on playability of multiplayer nowadays. Bioschock 2's multiplayer is not the best but the story is unbelievable, it is in fact better than most games to date. But this is not the first time this has happened. Brutal Legend had the same score. It deserved better than a 8.25 (I'll admit that the story tended to repeat missions and the multiplayer was lacking playability but the story was great and was fun) and the only reason The Darkness received a 8.75 is because the multiplayer sucked. Dude you hit the nail right on head with your claims. I demand that this game be re-reviewed by someone who actually knows how to rate a game. Or other option, have two rating systems one for the main story, or campaign, and another for the multiplayer.
I honestly think it isn't that fair of a rating, especially since a game like Halo 3: ODST or Modern Warfare 2 is also a more of the same game that seemed to get a 9.25 and 9.75, but lemme tell you something that I said in another game...
An 8.25 ISN'T EVEN A BAD SCORE!! I'll admit I'm a Bioshock fanboy through and through, but all of those fanboys should stop bitching. Sure it's a strange review, but remember that there are other gaming sites/magazines that review games as well, and many of them have given it the high praise we expected. So what if GI gave it a disappointing score, I'm not gonna let one guy's opinion make me wanna not buy the game. As soon as I buy it, I'm gonna be amazed, just as long as I'm back in Rapture, and the controls are fine, which from what I heard, they are.
I thought the game deserved at least a 9. Reiner lost my respect. I think the game is great and the multiplayer is different. Reiner complained about how each loadout only includes 2 plasmids... if it were any more, it'd be ridiculous.
I agree 100%. Game Informer should have given it a better score for all the reasons you stated. The only way a sequel to Bioshock would have worked is if they did exactly what they did, and that's create a separate story that's just as compelling and entertaining, (I'm only about halfway through so far and I love it).
I'm never a fanboy when it comes to anything, but I do believe some reviewers take that mentality and apply it to their scores. Modern Warfare 2 should not have scored as high as it did from anyone, THAT's a game that pretty much recycled everything from the first. Don't get me wrong, I like the game, but what's virtually a copy of it's predecessor shouldn't get near perfect scores.
Anyways, Bioshock 2 rocks. I'm glad 2K Marin took up the charge; enjoying every minute.
I respect Reiner's opinion, but I disagree with him. I haven't finished the game yet or anything, but so far it's been great, and a lot of the complaints he had with the game seem more like personal disappointments than reasons the BioShock loving masses won't embrace it.
I got Bioshock 2 today when i played it i freaked out THIS GAME IS AWESOME I loved the beginning cut-scene and the game i just was a little sad when i didnt get all my plasmids but nonetheless it makes sense and i only though the bad part was so far was a little lack of enemies at the very beginning but beside that i say 9.25 only reason not a ten was because the multiplayer was kinda weird if its your first time playing and wasnt strait up completely
One of the reasons why Reiner says he felt as vulnerable as Jack in the first one is because of the many enemies that come after you. In bioshock 1 you aren't attack by more than five people at once while in Bioshock 2 you are constantly getting these mobs of enemies coming after you
I'm all for disagreeing with someone's rating on a game; but people, honestly making a review and having half of it stating how much you disagree with x's opinion on the game takes the merit away from your review, showing you have a vendetta/fan boy tendency to cause such will no be persuasive to those reading your review, nor is it professional. I mean no offensive by this Dead-spacer, and I larger agree with you. I'm just trying to offer some critique on your review writing.
call of duty changes location and has entirely different story lines. it is so much better. u shouldnt get a good score unless u change the story line
@George Stancer Call of duty was the same thing with pretty much random locations following the hollow story line. Bioshock IS Rapture. There is more feeling in the surroundings in the first Bioshock than all of the Call of Duty games locations put together.
I agree with the score
There are probably some other factors we are unaware of, but I agree. Bioshock 2 is, compared to the usual junk put out into the world, an amazing sequel that the production team likely did ACTUAL work on. And yeah, Modern Warfare 2 does a little touch up and a bunch of new missions and suddenly its the greatest thing ever made. I liked Modern Wafare 2, it was a fun game, and so on. But yeah...Bioshock is still a great game.
Love the game so far. As for the review, I didn't saw any paragraph that the guy said "This game sucks, don't play it". i think the game disappointed him and I honestly don't blame the dude. I mean is a sequel and the graphics are exactly the same as BioShock or at least I haven't notice the difference. While I enjoy the gameplay more I don't feel engaged in the story. And your character doesn't feel like a Big Daddy at all, except when someone in the game keeps reminding you. As for multiplayer; I'm not much of a multiplayer gamer but what played it's kinda fun, but I think it won't be sharing the same level of addiction as MW2 which is the only multiplayer game that I really like. And yes, MW 2 story sucks, but the campaign was spectacular.
Fighting the Big Sisters are quite epically awesome!! Ro Bioshock 2 was and eye opener and fighting the horde guy when your daughter is collecting atom is always a new/slash fun way to kill the bad guys thinkin of double moves and owning enemies...