This is Delta, a prototype protector who was designed to have a lasting bond with a single Little Sister for reasons too convoluted to go into here. Set ten years after the events of BioShock, BioShock 2 puts players into the thumping boots of a Big Daddy. Does BioShock 2 do BioShock justice? Does 2K Marin manage to fill the shoes passed down to them by Irrational Games, or is there too much space left empty? Read on as we review BioShock 2.īioShock 2 (PC, PS3, Xbox 360 )ĭeveloper: 2K Marin, 2K Australia, Digital Extremes With some huge shoes to fill, 2K Marin certainly had its work cut out for it and BioShock 2 is in an unenviable position as the first follow-up to one of 2007’s most critically acclaimed games. We’re here to tell you whether or not BioShock 2 is good. Whether or not BioShock 2 is required isn’t for us to decide. So good, in fact, that many considered a sequel completely unnecessary. A brand-new IP with a fantastic story and an interesting sandbox-style approach to combat within a linear format, it was a damn fine game. A person may like BioShock 2 and consider it better than BioShock Infinite or even the best in the series and that is fine but that will never be the objective opinion on the series.When BioShock launched in 2007, it felt like a breath of fresh air to many gamers. I liked BioShock 2, but seeing people put it on the same pedestal as BioShock and claiming that it is better than BioShock Infinite pisses me off and actually makes me dislike the game, looking at its toxic fanbase. Ken Levine has even said that he thinks it's non-canon. Here's a previous post a while ago with great opinions on why people didn't like BioShock 2: If you need to use up half your Audio Diaries to explain why something wasn't mentioned in the first game then maybe that should be a sign not to include that.Īnyway, I could go on about this, but there are literally countless posts about this subject, almost a new every week, which again isn't a good sign. I felt that half of everything we learned through dialog and was to explain why this and that was not mentioned in the first game, especially Sofia Lamb. Having to remake the Big Daddy so that it can be a protagonist is not good storytelling. 2K knew that the Rapture and the Big Daddy/Little Sister pair was what people loved about the game and boy-oh-boy did they take that to their advantage. The city didn't have a big part in the game compared to the first and Bioshock 2 story could have worked just as well on the moon or underground, but it wouldn't have been a success because the story is not strong enough to be its own game without the title "BioShock". The fate of the city was left in a mystery which is what Ken Levine has always liked and BioShock 2 destroyed that. Speaking of forced: Having another story set in Rapture after the conclusion of the first game was not needed. This resulted in the game feeling like more of a DLC for BioShock than an actual game: Reused assets, legit no new Plasmids or Weapons (changing design of them and renaming them does not count as new) and "lazy" concepts: Having a game heavily criticize communism when the previous one did that on capitalism is not good and quite forced. While he brings up some points there are still some more: If you like it or not, it is objectively a cash cow, even stated by the Jordan Thomas himself (the game's director): It took less then 3 years to develop which is a very short time for a triple-A game, not only on game building, but on making a story. I'll share this link as this guy sums up why the general public gave BioShock 2 all the hate:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |