What do you think of the BioShock series?

I like all 3 of them.

The original is a standard setter for what that generation of games could be, even if it is kind of a dumbed down SS2.

2 is a fun enough romp, but doesn't feel quite as creative as the first (different team and all that). I think the Minervas Den DLC, contrary to popular opinion, dull and pointless (I never did finish it though). I feel like other than the Rapture cameo in Infinite's base game, going back to Rapture again and again is a mistake.

I like Infinite now a lot more than I used to, oddly (the DLCs suck though, they retcon way too much). Even where it fails, I feel like at least Irrational was trying to do something new and different with the setting and universe.

I also like to point out that the people that complained about the violence in the game don't seem to understand anything about Booker's character. Extreme violence is pretty much what defines Booker's problem solving skills, whether in the army, as a strikebreaker, or in the game's action. Most games don't go as far out of their way to justify why someone is a murder machine (Uncharted, for example). Booker's a violent guy, you give him some superpowers and he's going to use them to wreck up the place to accomplish his goal.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Rondo Richter Belmont and UncleFezziesPantsPuppet
infinite was such a pretentious dickwash that they forgot to make the actual gameplay fun. i feel that while 2's story isn't really that good, they really fleshed out the action. 1 sticks out to me because when it was new i sat there for five minutes after the opening cutscene, assuming it was prerendered and still going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moths and Violence Jack
Testaclese Maximus said:
I don’t really like it. I understand why it’s popular but it isn’t for me.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I personally don't like GTA V, but again its not my cup of tea.

timecop said:
infinite was such a pretentious dickwash that they forgot to make the actual gameplay fun. i feel that while 2's story isn't really that good, they really fleshed out the action. 1 sticks out to me because when it was new i sat there for five minutes after the opening cutscene, assuming it was prerendered and still going.
Click to expand...
Infinite was good, but yea inferior to the first two. BioShock 2 I'm starting to like a lot more. But yea, nothing beats the first game!

The Shadow said:
I like all 3 of them.

The original is a standard setter for what that generation of games could be, even if it is kind of a dumbed down SS2.

2 is a fun enough romp, but doesn't feel quite as creative as the first (different team and all that). I think the Minervas Den DLC, contrary to popular opinion, dull and pointless (I never did finish it though). I feel like other than the Rapture cameo in Infinite's base game, going back to Rapture again and again is a mistake.

I like Infinite now a lot more than I used to, oddly (the DLCs suck though, they retcon way too much). Even where it fails, I feel like at least Irrational was trying to do something new and different with the setting and universe.

I also like to point out that the people that complained about the violence in the game don't seem to understand anything about Booker's character. Extreme violence is pretty much what defines Booker's problem solving skills, whether in the army, as a strikebreaker, or in the game's action. Most games don't go as far out of their way to justify why someone is a murder machine. Booker's a violent guy, you give him some superpowers and he's going to use them to wreck up the place to accomplish his goal.
Click to expand...
I remember Infinite used to be my favorite, but now I still think the original BioShock is my favorite.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enjoyed 1 for what it gave. Never played 2. 3 was a game I had interest in but after playing it, I wasn't really feeling it and honestly, I wish that game stuck with what they were going for in the early trailers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: enderpotato00
Overall I liked the series, though like everyone else in the thread I think the 3rd one disappeared so far up it's own ass before the half way point. I did kind of like that Booker allowing himself to die is what ended the story of the main game. Why the DLC decided to retcon the whole "every reality with Booker/Comstock has been ended except a possible happy end one" is beyond me.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Rondo Richter Belmont and enderpotato00
tarni said:
I enjoyed 1, didn't like 2 and quite liked Infinite.
Even though the series was pretentious I think their focus on singleplayer made it a good counterpoint to the CODs and Battlefields.
Click to expand...
I used to be like you with BioShock 2, however I'm starting to like it more and more.
 
I got a lot of enjoyment out of BioShock 1. Shooting through an exaggerated piss-taking of Ayn Rand was a nice twist on the usual FPS playthrough.

I didn't play 2. :powerlevel:Instead I watched the Yahtzee review which convinced me the entire sequel is made up of that escort mission from the first game, the absolute worst part of that experience.

Infinite was fun, if a bit pretentious and confused about what it wanted to be. Then Anita Sarkeesian said the game had a "garbage story" for daring to make the oppressed peoples of colors bad guys when their rebellion won. That made me like the game even more.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: frozenrunner, The Fool, Rondo Richter Belmont and 3 others
I enjoyed the first two games. Initially I kinda liked 2 a bit better because you got to play as a Big Daddy, but I grew to appreciate the first one a lot more when I revisited it.

Infinite I initially liked, but on a repeat playthrough and further analysis, you can really start to see the seams and where everything kinda falls apart. Doesn't help that the game was originally going to be larger in scope but was scaled way down into a much more linear game.

Also, the fact that Elizabeth is practically a non entity to the enemies kinda pulled me out the whole thing. Like, she's super important to them, but they don't make any effort to try and capture her or even acknowledge her existence. It would have been cool if the way enemies fought you was influenced by how close or far away she was from you, and they could even try pulling her away from you so they could actually focus all their fire on you. Just seemed like a massive missed opportunity. I get people tend to be annoyed by escort missions, but the way Elizabeth was implemented in the final game just felt lazy.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Moths, Rondo Richter Belmont, Sir Wesley Tailpipe and 2 others
scorptatious said:
I enjoyed the first two games. Initially I kinda liked 2 a bit better because you got to play as a Big Daddy, but I grew to appreciate the first one a lot more when I revisited it.

Infinite I initially liked, but on a repeat playthrough and further analysis, you can really start to see the seams and where everything kinda falls apart. Doesn't help that the game was originally going to be larger in scope but was scaled way down into a much more linear game.

Also, the fact that Elizabeth is practically a non entity to the enemies kinda pulled me out the whole thing. Like, she's super important to them, but they don't make any effort to try and capture her or even acknowledge her existence. It would have been cool if the way enemies fought you was influenced by how close or far away she was from you, and they could even try pulling her away from you so they could actually focus all their fire on you. Just seemed like a massive missed opportunity. I get people tend to be annoyed by escort missions, but the way Elizabeth was implemented in the final game just felt lazy.
Click to expand...
I have to agree on Infinite. The multiverse stuff was kind of out of place for BioShock.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Sir Wesley Tailpipe, Violence Jack and Francis E. Dec Esc.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back