Bioshock thread #277624

[MinisterofDOOM]

Okay, Zee. Let's discuss.

To copy over the posts from your review thread (which I can delete if you'd like):

I definitely disagree very very strongly that lack of multiplayer should negatively impact Bioshock's score. Bioshock isn't a multiplayer game. I hate the mindset that all games should have multiplayer. That's like marking down a 350z because it doesn't have third row seats.

I really don't understand why people think every single game should have a multi-player aspect.

Now there is where you are VERY WRONG. In your analogy you say a 350z shouldn't be marked down because it doesn't have a 3rd row seat. Well was the 350z built on a platform that was meant to have a 3rd row seat? NO. Bioshock was built on a platform that is all about multiplayer. The 360 would have flopped by now if it wasn't for Xbox Live. See you have to understand why I am saying things such as this instead of putting you own spin on it. I think Bioshock is a great game aside from it being short and lacking the one thing that has put to 360 so far above the Wii (aside from the name, still think they should have kept the name Revolution), and PS3. Now if you wish to discuss this further I will be happy to but please make a new topic because this is for reviews only. Thank You and I do appreciate you taking the time to read my reviews.

I understand why you're saying things. I just don't agree with the reasoning.

My view is that no game should be condemned to a any fate simply due to the "focus" of it's host console.

Before I continue, it's probably worth noting that I really don't care for multiplayer games in general. While I'm young enough to have been a bit late to the video game scene, I have been a gamer most of my life. Multiplayer gaming has only really taken off recently. Before that, games were solo experiences, unless "multiplayer" referred to the other people in the room whose controllers are plugged into the same console as mine. That's the way I like it. Multiplayer games (unless it's the aforementioned "party couch" mode) hold no entertainment value for me. Games are a way to ESCAPE reality and people and, with a few exceptions, other people are the last thing I want to involve in my relaxing game time. I'm not a competitive gamer in any sense of the word (with the notable exception of my reign of terror in Half Life deathmatch years ago).

I have significant beefs with Xbox Live itself as well, and see it in a VERY different light than you do. Far from the savior of the Xbox 360, I view Xbox Live as the enslavement of the modern console gamer. (That is actually a LITTLE extreme, but it sounded good. ) More detail on my less-than-admiring view of XBL.

So I may be a bit biased. But, come to think of it, it's LESS biased. The gaming industry (be it the consumer or commercial end) is currently in a fit of multiplayer mania, and I'm frankly bored with it. I'm sick of multiplayer-only shooters. I'm fed up with developers using the easy way out (multiplayer games are significantly easier to develop because they lack a need for story depth, AI, and other major items that singleplayer games require). I'm PISSED OFF that developers are neglecting should-have-been-spectacular singleplayer modes in games due to over-focus on multiplayer. (Halo, anyone? Metroid: Hunters, perhaps?)

So when I come across a singleplayer game that's particularly fun, I get a break in that monotonous boredom. FINALLY, something I can enjoy without needing other people. Something I can screw around in on my own terms. Something that doesn't revolve around scores or points or frags, but simply having FUN.

So, for me, the suggestion that a game that fits those criteria (like Bioshock) should recieve a lower score due to LACK of multiplayer doesn't click.

BUT, this thread is about Bioshock specifically (not just games in general), so:Bioshock isn't really a game with a play style that caters to multiplayer. I could possibly see cooperative multiplayer, but even that would require some pretty big changes in how things work. It would change a lot of what makes the game enjoyable.Then again, System Shock 2 had cooperative multiplayer and it was excellent. But Bioshock isn't nearly the game SS2 was. More like a dulled down, prettied up version for the latest generation of short-attention-span halo gamers.

And I don't see any room for competitive multiplayer in Bioshock. What would you do? You can't do a "Diablo" style multiplayer system, because Rapture is too confining and far, far too linear. You can't do deathmatch because gameplay is dependent on character development.

there has been too many games that slap on a half assed multilayer mode and calls it a day. No thanks

EXACTLY. The current "must have multiplayer" state of the industry is the reason for that.

the original wolfenstine 3d needed not multiplayer mode to make it great. Had half life 1 or 2 still been game of the year without multiplayer? probably, due to innovation.

Actually, that's another great example.Half Life 2 did NOT have a multiplayer mode when it was released. HL2 DeathMatch trailed the game by two weeks. And reviewers marked HL2 down for this! Even though it was a beautifully conceived and executed game, the lack of multiplayer was still held against it. I can understand a bit mroe in HL2's case, since HLDM was so pupular and since it's a much more multiplayer-friendly game than Bioshock. But the point is that HL2 ISN'T a multiplayer game. And neither is Bioshock. Doesn't matter what platform they sell on. It isn't any different than decrying a sports car for not being a minivan. One is one, the other is the other. They should never be forced to mix, no matter what console they debut on. Nothing WRONG with them mixing, but I see no reason why they should ALWAYS have to mix. There's no reason variety should ever be pushed to the wayside for the sake of blind uniformity.

[Fenvy]

there has been too many games that slap on a half assed multilayer mode and calls it a day. No thanks

it would have been additional brownie points for bioshock to have a multiplayer mode but it doesn't have it.

the original wolfenstine 3d needed not multiplayer mode to make it great. Had half life 1 or 2 still been game of the year without multiplayer? probably, due to innovation.

[Zee]

Ok Minister I see where your coming from and I agree with you on some big points. The first one is that Single-Player Campaigns make the game, not the multiplayer. Second Bioshock was a great game.

Now I can understand this all, but you see the reason Bioshock got a bad rating from me is because it had some great aspects of the game indeed, but you cannot compare it to the likes of the first Halo (exclude 2nd Halo that was a total disgrace) and Darkness (one the best games ever in my opinion). Now when we are talking about Xbox Live you may not like it, but they have a big fanbase and games are meant to appeal to a large fanbase, hence why some games focus more on the multiplayer aspect.

Basically Bioshock has 2 major flaws. The first was in the Campaign, it was short drastically short, now how can I possibly give a game a 10 or even a 9 when the game that focuses totally on the campaign made it so damn short. The second flaw is the addition of no multiplayer. That is how you keep gamers from coming back. With what it simply has now, I would say you MIGHT play through it twice, but after that it is all the same and there is no point.

Ok I believe that if you don't like Xbox Live maybe you have been playing with the wrong people? I think maybe you should play with somebody that you are going to have fun with because then things are definitely better. Xbox Live is the saving grace of the original Xbox and will be the Saving Grace of the 360 when the PS3's library becomes bigger.

Now I do believe that the most important things for games is the Campaign (that is why when Enemy Territories: Quake Wars comes out I will be very skeptical). That is a reason that I did not like Shadow Run and I will never waste my money on that crap. You see the thing I am wanting is a game that does both extremely well or perfect (which will never happen). I am just wanting to be a good reviewer for people on here by examining all the aspects of a game and not focusing on one.

I do believe Bioshock is a good game once again, but I think it was given a 10 by some reviewers simply because it is visually stunning game. That is the only reason I can think of because nothing is truly exceptional about the game.

Well there it is tell me what you got. (BTW I love this )

[MinisterofDOOM]

I definitely agree that a short single-player campaign is a gigantic strike against any game. And I think that's especially true with shooters, even the longest of which are very short compared to most other genres.And actually, in that respect, you're right about the lack of multiplayer being a bad thing. Multi-player would have been a good way to combat the lesser value of the short campaign.

I think MS puts too much stock in the role Achievements play in enhancing replay value.

I also think it says bad things for Bioshock's RPG elements when people only see the game worth playing two or three times (another point I agree with you on). The shortness of the campaign might have been balanced if you could go back through several times and experiment with character development like in, say, a Diablo title (I use Diablo as an example because it's a great game, one of my favorites, and even though it uses EXTREMELY simple and repetitive gameplay mechanics, it still hasn't gotten old to this day).

My dislike for XBL doesn't stem from the people themselves, necessarily (all my friends are fun people to game with) but rather from the basic fact that you're paying for what you should get for free. MS has too much control. I'd prefer more choice, rather than being stuck with their service for their price, especially since I can think of a lot of ways to improve on it (for the end-user, not for MS's profitability). I also really don't like the idea of having banner ads provided by a service I'm paying for.MS is using it as too much of a money-pit instead of letting it become what it has the potential to be.

I like Bioshock, but overall I think your 8.5 is spot on... While it is a great game, I think it's getting too much credit from most reviewers.

Here's an interesting Bioshock video I ran across:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMiqDqkWn8

[Zee]

HA! See my point proven, yet another converted to the Dark Side.

Yes I do agree with the fact of the banners ads on Xbox Live being gay, but I do think that paying for it is a necessary evil because they have been able to do some major overhauls to it in the recent months. I think the money is the only thing that sets Xbox Live apart from PSN because if PSN charges it will be able to roll out a good network which will actually rival Xbox Live. Until then Xbox Live is a way to go when it comes online multiplayer.

(I think maybe I should try to work for like IGN to do reviews. I am pretty good if I can convince you. lol)

[R240sx]

the original wolfenstine 3d needed not multiplayer mode to make it great. Had half life 1 or 2 still been game of the year without multiplayer? probably, due to innovation.

Half life 1 online has to have been to most popular online fps to date. no one would remember Half life 1 right now if it wasnt for its online and modding community.

[Zee]

Half life 1 online has to have been to most popular online fps to date. no one would remember Half life 1 right now if it wasnt for its online and modding community.

That is very debatable because if you really think about it Halo 2 might have it beat. It has been three years since it came out and it is still going fairly strong. So I have to disagree with you there. I think Halo 2 has it beat.

[OldmanPurdy]

Half life 1 online has to have been to most popular online fps to date. no one would remember Half life 1 right now if it wasnt for its online and modding community.

I never played a single multiplayer game of Half-life or CS and yet I can probally recite from memory every location in the game in the order they appear in, same for system shock 1 and 2 (2 had co-op though), I like multiplayer and all but its not a deal breaker for me.

[R240sx]

That is very debatable because if you really think about it Halo 2 might have it beat. It has been three years since it came out and it is still going fairly strong. So I have to disagree with you there. I think Halo 2 has it beat.

No its not debatable at all here are the stats for Counter strike, only 1 of Half-lifes most popular mods

solidifying its position as the most popular online first-person shooter of all time[1],2007, February 5 is still the most widely played online first-person shooter in the world. In 2002 there were over 30,000 populated Counter-Strike servers on the Internet (second place was Unreal Tournament with about 9,800). In 2004, GameSpy statistics showed over 85,000 players simultaneously playing Counter-Strike at any point in time, and in 2006, Steam regularly shows over 200,000 players for Counter-Strike[1] (this includes Counter-Strike: Source, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero and Counter-Strike). According to statistics gathered by Valve's content-delivery platform, Steam, these players collectively contribute to over 6.177 billion minutes of playing time each month, as of Counter-Strike is still the most widely played online first-person shooter in the world. In 2002 there were over 30,000

As of August 2007,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike

while halo might be the most popular online game for a console, it pale's in comparison to half life.

[Zee]

To Prove your point your quoted Wikipedia. WOW I can't believe you tried to prove your point using that site. That is a site by users and edited by users. It means nothing at all. I don't care if you think it does. Wikipedia is NOT a reputable site. Please try again.

[Zee]

Here:

wiki

DEFINITION - A wiki (sometimes spelled "Wiki") is a server program that allows users to collaborate in forming the content of a Web site. With a wiki, any user can edit the site content, including other users' contributions, using a regular Web browser. Basically, a wiki Web site operates on a principle of collaborative trust.

http://searchwebservices.techt....html

[R240sx]

To Prove your point your quoted Wikipedia. WOW I can't believe you tried to prove your point using that site. That is a site by users and edited by users. It means nothing at all. I don't care if you think it does. Wikipedia is NOT a reputable site. Please try again.

I know that, but im at work so i cant go on game websites but ok fine then go and look it up on steams official website..

http://steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html

[Zee]

Ok that is a little better. Although the chart you gave me is not up to date. Anyway Halo leads it by 50,000 players per day. As per steampowered and Bungie.

[R240sx]

Ok that is a little better. Although the chart you gave me is not up to date. Anyway Halo leads it by 50,000 players per day. As per steampowered and Bungie.

Where did you get that number from????

Either way its still acclaimed as #1 online FPS to date by many reviewers, no doubt that halo cant be discredited, it is the most popular online console FPS to date i think

[Zee]

Well lets look at it this way. There is no REAL evidence to support either one of our claims so lets agree to disagree.

Ok?