redface on 17/1/2010 at 22:42

---

I disagree. If Bioshock didn't make a lot of money, they would have blamed it on the game being too complex for mass audiences and future games in the subgenre would probably be dumbed down even more.

TrantaLocked on 18/1/2010 at 08:42

---

Woah man, woah. I signed up just to reply to your reply and I am extremely pissed off at you.

Sure System Shock is great (I have played it myself) and still is scary and thrilling, but if you are saying BioShock sucks then I don't believe you deserve to exist in this world. BioShock is better than System Shock on all levels, including story, graphics, sound, game play, characters, guns, the list goes on. Just because all you had when you were 15 was System Shock doesn't mean better games come out in the future, and BioShock is an incredible new game that can easily be named as one of the best intense RPG-FPS's of the decade.

Ok, it can be considered one of those huge overpowered games that are being made like Halo and CoD, but the game is still incredible and actually I think it is a good thing the producers amplified the atmosphere so much over SS. It is MUCH more realistic first of all, and it is just more fun, you know? I play games to have fun, obviously, and even though I like System Shock 1 and 2, they are more work and thinking. Some people like this more which might be why they dislike BioShock but in my opinion it was a good thing they made BioShock a bit easier to play. And even still, BioShock has more options and possibilites than SS. Hmm..

The only thing I like better about System Shock is its quitness which makes the mood a little darker, and thrilling. I also get annoyed by the bland engine it uses but that is the 90's for you, so I can't complain about that.

If there were to be a SSIII, I say keep the old engine and gameplay and make the graphics better. We already have a so called "unoriginal, modern, over done" SSIII called BioShock (which I completely disagree with), so give the old school gamers a new game really called SSIII. If that is what you want, that is. Any thing else, and producers will have to do more with it. I am interested to see what System Shock 2 with BioShock-end graphics would look like though. But, I predict such a game would not do so well on the market, especially with all these CoD, Halo, and RPG games coming out.

For a last comment, it is BioShock, not BioSuck.

D'Arcy on 18/1/2010 at 16:36

---

Ken? Is that you? Well, whomever you are, the Bioshock forums are that way --->

Now bugger off.

Matthew on 21/1/2010 at 11:43

---

BioSUCK? Honestly?

ZergMasterBaiter on 21/1/2010 at 16:23

---

Kolya, I admit I let my emotions take over but I wasn't quite "mindlessly bashing" either. I have solid reasons for why I don't like Bioshock after playing through it once. I've been lurking on this forum for a while now and see that many share my sentiment for the FPS wonder that is Bioshock so I didn't feel like reiterating the same points but rather go for a more direct approach for a change so as to draw out his responce and "real" reasons why he liked Bioshock so much (ahem graphics). In, my opinion Bioshock just sucks as a gaming experience.

I'm sorry but when I have choice of wondering though a huge starship with multiple interconnected decks filled with unspeakable horrors versus being led by hand through a dozen tiny artificial setpiece "levels", I choose System Shock 2 (and if you can't see that particular gameplay difference then you never played System Shock 2) The first time I played Bioshock I was stunned... with utter disappointment. I was waiting for THIS supposed System Shock "spiritual successor" for all these years? The bloody "game" (more like interactive movie if you ask me) took me roughly 12 hours to finish! There was nothing I wanted to go back for, with the exception of the intro sequence which I admit was great. But I still wanted my money back. System Shock 2 had so much more gameplay depth for a decade-old game! And now this guy just says that Bioshock was in fact a better game on all accounts with no real facts to back them up (are Bioshock's cool guns that important to you?). I'm just sick of people claiming that Bioshock was the superior game. I know that to the younger crowd the most important thing is graphics, but can amazing graphics save inferior, derivative gameplay (Bioshock WAS essentially another FPS game set in an original world and not a complex hybrid that it should have been)? Ask yourself that.

PS: I'm sorry if my opinions seem overly biased against the modern FPS trend. It's just that I was expecting something substantially more from Ken and the good old Irrational Games than from Valve or Bungie.