82 réponses à ce sujet

[cancausecancer]

I prefer notepad to bioshock 2

[Agent_Dark_]

would you kindly stfu about bioshock2

Modifié par Agent_Dark_, 14 février 2010 - 05:49 .

[AK118]

well, in bioshock 2 there are some story choices, and it's surprising some of them that were put in, like whether or not to kill that black woman. they're completely different games, and i'd say ME2 is better, but i will admit i had more fun playing Bioshock 2.

[Permutation]

I got bored of the first BioShock really fast. It was pretty, but the game was just too much of the same, over and over. I would much rather Take-Two develop a new System Shock.

Modifié par Permutation, 14 février 2010 - 05:55 .

[wowpwnslol]

You forgot:



Bioshock 2: 5-7 hours to finish



ME2: 35-45 hours to finish



Owned.

[IggyD]

Strangely enough i compared ME2's ammo system and Bioshock 2's hacking...not as a similar gameplay element but as a feature that has been altered from the original game.

Bioshock 1's hacking involved sneaking up or disabling a piece of "electronic" and "hacking" it by reworking a water pipe puzzle. It was long and perhaps a bit too brainy for some, although there was a "buy out" option. It was still flow breaking, so the devs of B2 decided to do away with the pipes puzzle and go with a much faster timing one. There might've been a few people who liked the pipes puzzles just fine, and are probably complaining about it on 2k's forums as i write this...But here's the thing, those that lost the fun of the hacking puzzle gained the ability to hack from a distance, an ability that was sorely missing in Bioshock 1. The loss of one feature was counterbalanced with the gain of another, and while most of the old fashioned puzzle players are still put out, it is still a fair trade and most of them accept it.

ME2's new ammo system, while it does provide the added gunman's thrill of running out of ammo to some, disgruntled a great deal of the original fanbase, and didn't provide a feature that would let them accept it or tolerate it...like, say, being able to set the power level of the gun and alter the rate of thermal buildup.

I haven't finished bioshock 2 yet but so far? It stands as an excellent example of a sequel done right: it keeps what's good about the original and modified the less savorable elements into something either more efficient or fun. ME2? not so much...it's still good and the great writing has been kept from the original, but it's a different game. Perhaps a little TOO different.

Modifié par IggyD, 14 février 2010 - 06:11 .

[Beeno4Life]

cancausecancer wrote...

I prefer notepad to bioshock 2

LOL

[screwoffreg]

Hey all, Mass Effect 2 vs Final Fantasy XIII!~!!!!!

[IggyD]

Sure, why not? we'll compare the two when FFXIII comes out. There are plenty of points of comparison to be had, you just gotta find them

[Impresario]

ME2 is the new Kameo.

[The Mythical Magician]

Note to OP its a bad idea to even post a topic about comparing a Bioware game to another video game company's game on the Bioware forum because most of the members will stick up for Bioware.

[h_pepon]

Jackal904 wrote...

Odd Hermit wrote...

Biotics -
Bioshock has a more satisfying biotic system.

Since when did Bioshock get biotics? You sir are an idiot. Bioshock 2 couldn't even hold a tea candle to the star that is Mass Effect 2.

Bioshock's biotics are called plasmids. I haven't played Bioshock 2, but the original shines as bright as Mass Effect 2.

[Chromie]

Bioshock 1 is Great Bioshock lost it's appeal to me.



What the frack you doing comparing the two anyways? Bioshock was built ground up as a shooter Mass Effect wasn't.

[Realmjumper]

Here's why Bioshock 2 loses. It doesn't push the envelope like Mass Effect 2. No radical changes as said in Game Informer. Mass Effect 2 has balls and changed a lot of things. Some people may not agree with it but overall Mass Effect 2 is a technical marvel and pushed the envelope. It has set the bar and challeneged all developers to dare and make a better game.



So far Mass Effect 2 is the best game in 2010. What is going to top it? I don't see anything on the horizon that can except maybe the Dragonage expansion.

[Odd Hermit]

IggyD wrote...
...
I haven't finished bioshock 2 yet but so far? It stands as an excellent example of a sequel done right: it keeps what's good about the original and modified the less savorable elements into something either more efficient or fun. ME2? not so much...it's still good and the great writing has been kept from the original, but it's a different game. Perhaps a little TOO different.

Realmjumper wrote...

Here's why Bioshock 2 loses. It
doesn't push the envelope like Mass Effect 2. No radical changes as
said in Game Informer. Mass Effect 2 has balls and changed a lot of
things. Some people may not agree with it but overall Mass Effect 2 is
a technical marvel and pushed the envelope. It has set the bar and
challeneged all developers to dare and make a better game.

So
far Mass Effect 2 is the best game in 2010. What is going to top it? I
don't see anything on the horizon that can except maybe the Dragonage
expansion.

I can agree with both points really.
ME 2 they did take some solid steps toward improving combat(with some changes I don't agree with, but overall combat ended up better), while Bioshock 2 is very much like Bioshock 1.
I think Bioshock had a better foundation for combat to start with though, and ME 2's combat still just feels so repetitive and simple still.

The main things I think ME 2 changed the wrong way from ME 1 was the universal CD + healing suits with an overemphasis on cover.
Spamming your strongest ability every CD and sitting behind cover every time you're at risk 'til your shields/health come back will get you through almost every encounter in the game.

The Mythical Magician wrote...

Note to OP its a bad idea
to even post a topic about comparing a Bioware game to another video
game company's game on the Bioware forum because most of the members
will stick up for Bioware.

Only if you care about getting flamed, which I don't at all. I expected a lot of disagreement and had my flame shield at the ready.

Modifié par Odd Hermit, 14 février 2010 - 07:54 .

[Serenity1989]

Odd Hermit wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...
You DO realize that bioshock 2 and mass effect 2 are completely different games? Why don't you go compare the shooting of ME2 to that of modern warfare 2 instead?

They are not completely different, they are more alike than most of the people in this thread seem to think.

Both are shooters combined with special powers and tech/hacking.
Mass Effect 2 certainly has more dialogue, characters, side quests, etc. but I'm specifically comparing the combat because that is where their similarities are and one succeeds over the other in many areas at it. In part because it is more focused on that aspect of the game I will admit, but that's no reason ME 3 couldn't have equally great shooter and RPG aspects if they took a good look at Bioshock 2's combat and learned some things from it.

There are a lot of different games that are shooters with special powers and tech/hacking...

Doesn't mean that they're very similar.

[Tamcia]

Bioschock 2 - 6 hours of game play. Was extremely disappointed, glad I tried it out on a friend console, so not wasting money.
Bioshock 1 was so much better.

Story: complete and utter crap.
Gameplay: fun, but got boring fast. Bioshock had this "new thing" feel, now it feels like a copy of first part, with some random story.
Graphics: good. The water effects were very good, also the weapons/abilities graphics.

As I mentioned its very short, like super short. I don't want to play it again.

Mass Effect 2 was so much better in many areas (not all, Bioshock does have some good aspects).

Modifié par Tamcia, 14 février 2010 - 08:30 .

[Sadja]

I like apples.
I also like melons, the watery type.
And I am a real big fan of fruit-salad.

I'm not sure how the OP can compare BioShock 2 with Mass Effect 2.  Is it because they are both sequels and have 2 attached to their names?

BioShock 2 is a shooter with story element (*).
Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with shooter elements.

They both have their focus somewhere else, so your comparison is unfair, as you clearly put the gameplay of the shooter variety before the character driven gameplay of an RPG.

(*) So is HalfLife, so is Halo, so is Gears of War, etc...
HalfLife pulled it off somewhat nicely, but let's not forget that BioShock is the brain child of the best story focused Shooter ever: System Shock 1 and 2

Is BioShock(**) good? Yes, It's very good. It's lovely. It's amazing. From all the shooters out there it's my favorite, as it follows the line of the great minds back in LookingGlass who created the two best games ever.

But is it better than Mass Effect?

It can't, 'cause its so different.
       They're both fruit salads and everyone knows that depending on what you put in the salads aren't really the same.


(**)note I did not say BioShock 2, I am refering to the series and preferably BioShock 1

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia..../System_Shock_2

Modifié par Sadja, 14 février 2010 - 08:47 .

[IggyD]

sadja, like i said, specific points of comparison can be made. Your fruit argument is correct, to a certain point... i can't quite compare their flavor, since they're too damned different and there's no accounting for taste, but i can determine which one is the more nourishing food.

[Phil5000]

Interesting comparison. But they are both shooters after all.

Bazinga!

[Sadja]

IggyD wrote...

sadja, like i said, specific points of comparison can be made. Your fruit argument is correct, to a certain point... i can't quite compare their flavor, since they're too damned different and there's no accounting for taste, but i can determine which one is the more nourishing food.

Yeh, but... alright, I'm using me here for an example so maybe my whole arguments are flawed from the beginning.
Yet here's where my reasoning comes from.

2010 is rolling in and I am looking for new games to play. My preference here is with RPGs, though I play pretty much everything except strategy and sports. I look at the list of what's coming and I order.

My first priority was Mass Effect 2, the RPG--the one thing that will play like a book reads or a movie is watched. I know I can expect story and dialogue and character driven development. I wouldn't think about BioShock here, as it doesnt fit into that category.

BioShock 2 came next. The sequel to my favorite 'new' FPS. I knew to expect a fairly dynamic shooter with the the same (though I was dissapointed here) emphasis on story.

Assassins Creed 2 came after...
.. I won't comment on that. But I also like 3rd person action games and AC2 was the only one available at that time, even though I feel repelled by the background story.

Either way, I (personally) couldn't compare them. All three offer advancement of the character, be that through plasmids or buying new weapons and getting more abilities. Even AC2 has armor upgrades, weapon upgrades and dying of your clothes.
       The clear cut line of shooter/rpg/action game has finally dissapated, but it's still obvious what game has its strenght where.

ME2 has it in the character driven story.
BioShock has it in the shooty stuff (and being like System Shock *cough* fangirl *cough*)
AC2 has it in.. in.. err.. killing in different and colorful ways? ^^

[joejoe099]

Realmjumper wrote...

Here's why Bioshock 2 loses. It doesn't push the envelope like Mass Effect 2. No radical changes as said in Game Informer. Mass Effect 2 has balls and changed a lot of things. Some people may not agree with it but overall Mass Effect 2 is a technical marvel and pushed the envelope. It has set the bar and challeneged all developers to dare and make a better game.

So far Mass Effect 2 is the best game in 2010. What is going to top it? I don't see anything on the horizon that can except maybe the Dragonage expansion.

you mean Mass Effect 2 has a quad, not balls

[Stinkface27]

Apples v.s. Oranges

[Ghost_360]

The Illusive Man > Andrew Ryan



Yeah I said it.