This 5 sequel nonsense is ridiculous. I'm hoping that they can pull off ONE competent sequel that somehow retains some link to the original game in the series - but they're going to have to take a pretty broad interpretation of what "Bioshock" actually *means*, given that we now basically know everything interesting about ALL the original characters in the game, and Rapture.

Yeah, the plasmids and the core "gameplay" certainly have a lot of potential for expansion, but the idea of the game, and almost all of the narrative... it's done. They should leave it done.

The other thing that's really weird is that in the article, he talks about Bioshock being a story of good versus evil... if anything, Bioshock was a story about grey versus black and white - it was more about extremism of any type being ultimately harmful. Without spoilers, there's not a whole lot to say other than that, but good versus evil? Someone totally missed the plot.

They can do it, Rapture was a big city. Given it was under water but...
I didn't feel like the last one was complete, it felt like they put 75% of their effort into it. They could have gone so much further.

In what way could they have gone further? Bioshock wasn't about exploring Rapture as a city. It was about why the city was founded and why it failed. In that regards, they pretty much covered all they needed to.

They could have offered more puzzles for different hacking situations aside from "pipedream".
I also got really tired of routinely running into the same generic enemy over and over and over. I'd suggest splitting the insane residence of Rapture into difference groups, clan's, gangs, utilizing different weaponry, tactics, and meathods of attacks.
Different animations and skins for each of the little girls you rescue would have made each more emotional and touching. Maybe you'd have to figure out how to get a needle out of a one girls hand while another just curlse up in the corner and cries... and another could give an ear peircing shreik to call every thing lurking in the dark with in a 500' radius.
I could go on and on.

Ah, I see your point. I agree that there could have been more variety in the enemies, but that in itself a sequel does not make. I think helava's point was that the story and setting were complete and self-contained, which makes making a sequel rather challenging to say the least.

I do hope that the other 5 games get as much hype as the first one. As it will make ignoring them, as I did with the first one, that much easier.

I'm sorry - can you explain your reasoning? Are you saying that simply because a game was popular that you refused to play it?

In fact, that is the reason. See, unlike so many others, I know myself. I've spent a lot of time with myself, and know how I think. If I buy a game that the entire world is in love with, and I hate it, I am going to have yet another chip on my shoulder in concern to the rest of the population having their heads stuffed up their own poop-chutes.

Throw in the facts that I have enough FPS games, and that the enemies were annoying, And you have the reason why I have not, and will not, play bioshock.

bad enough someone bought me the first gears of war.

But, one could also argue that if you know yourself so well, you shouldn't be swayed by the opinions of the "unwashed masses," so to speak. The fact that the public opinion on a game directly influences your own opinion would suggest that your own thoughts are simply a reflection of others' opinions.

Not that it really matters to me, honestly. I simply think that Bioshock was, indeed, a very good game and think it's a shame that you would skip it because it was critically acclaimed. It makes its fair share of mistakes, for certain, but it also proposes some very interesting mechanics and has one particular merging of story and gameplay that works amazingly well.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I avoided it because others like it, but because of how others HYPED it.


When Chuck D. told me "don't believe the hype," I guess I listened.