Bioshock

[SeriousMite]

Erm, Bioshock came out on the PC as well as the 360. Irrational haven't moved away from the format at all. And the PC version is highly optimised for the format. Oblivion not being properly optimised for the PC version was just Bethesda being incredibly lazy (since the proper optimisation mods came out within about 7 days of the game going on retail, we can assume they weren't that hard to implement).

Yes, they did make a PC version, but that wasn't the lead platform during development. As I understand it the main team designing the game wasn't even working on the PC version at all. They had a whole other team handling the port. And I think it's pretty clear from the design decisions they made, the game was primarly made for the 360. I don't blame them for that as that's where all the money is right now, but it's just too bad it has to be that way.

[Rhaco]

SM, I agree with most of your complaints about the game, the health/respawn system (although you can of course choose to just not take advantage of it) and the sameness of harvesting and saving in particular.

What I'm struggling to understand is why you think any of those things would've been different if the game was a PC exclusive.

[Werthead]

Yes, they did make a PC version, but that wasn't the lead platform during development. As I understand it the main team designing the game wasn't even working on the PC version at all. They had a whole other team handling the port. And I think it's pretty clear from the design decisions they made, the game was primarly made for the 360. I don't blame them for that as that's where all the money is right now, but it's just too bad it has to be that way.

What port? In computer parlance a 'port' is when a game is translated across to another format after release. The PC versions of the GTA games or FFVII are ports. Oblivion and Bioshock are not ports, as both were developed simultaneously for 360 and PC and came out simultaneously on both systems. Oblivion felt like a port as the optimisation team frankly did a crap job in translating the controls across to the PC. I understand this is not the problem with Bioshock (which I haven't played yet, but will at some point in the future).

This game has been in development for donkey's years (earliest mention I can recall was back in 2003), long before the 360 came out, which would suggest that the PC version was intended to be the 'primary' one. Maybe they did a Halo and switched to X-Box as the 'primary' format halfway through development? OTOH, Halo did then take eight months to come out on PC whilst again Bioshock was a simultaneous releasing, indicating it is not the case.

Criticising games when they're crap ports is perfectly valid (see the horrific state Halo 2 arrived on PC in) but with Bioshock that doesn't seem to be the case. You just don't like the game and have seized on dual-development as an explanation for it with nothing to really back it up. Are the controls screwed because they're designed for gamepads? Is the save game system an issue? Are the graphics limited by being produced on a less powerful machine (from the look of it I would say a substantial NO to the latter)? These are the sort of problems that do crop up on 'ports' and don't seem to have here.

[Mackaxx]

I was quite disappointed by the game. It was really a huge step backwards from System Shock 2. Sure the environment is pretty, but they made so many fundamental mistakes with the game design. There's no cost to respawn, and the respawn chambers are littered all over the place, making death completely meaningless. Fighting Big Daddies could have been so much more interesting if you actually had to kill them all in one go, but since their health always remains at whatever you left it at when you died, it becomes nothing but choosing your weapon which has the most ammo, and then running up and shooting them in the face until you die. Then you come back and repeat this until eventually you kill it.

Ammo is also way to abundant. I was constantly having to force myself to use certain weapons so I'd deplete my ammo enough to pick up the ammo on the ground (can't just let it go to waste). You no longer have any inventory, you can carry every single weapon in the game, and these weapons no longer take damage.

For me the cost of the respawns was the ammo and health packs, playing on hard you need to make every single shot count, and ensure you use as few eve hypos and health packs as possible. It was a big time punisment Ammo isnt way too abundant. In fact, many people have been bitching about how they dont get enough.

I'd have liked the weapons to degrade too but people used to bitch about the weapon jamming in system shock 1 and 2. The pacing is very different between the two games and im kind of glad there is an absence of mundane pendantery in this case.

There's no specialization. By the end of the game I was able to master everything. They give you so much Adom (even when rescuing Little Sisters, which was supposed to give you less) that there's no need to choose which skills are most important to you. You can just take them all.

You dont get enough Adam to get all the upgrades, period. Also your limited in how many tonics you can apply along with how many plasmids to have on the go, so at any one time you actually are a specialist.

You cant just 'use them all'. Its one thing to 'master' everything by buying it, its another to actually master it by learning how to use it well. Ive noticed how dramatically play styles vary in the game, despite being able to buy most things. I do agree that the little sister rescue bonuses sort of kill the point of it all, that shit me too.

I actually like that its not all about buying upgrades and just kind of standing there using your beefed up 'skills' to kill everything, you have to learn to use all these things properly. You as in the dude sitting on his arse playing the game.

Anyway, im kind of glad I played this on the trickier difficulty as from what im reading it defintiely wasnt as tense an experience to play with things turned down a notch or three.

And for all the hype about the storyline, I found it to be pretty standard videogame storytelling. Sure the crazy objectivists under water angle was something different, but the way the story was told felt just like any other FPS, and none of the characters were in any way memorable.

I'd disagree, but thats just me. If were doing comparisons here between SS2 and bioshock though I'd have to say the characters and storytelling were better in this instance than the last.

I'm so tired of once great PC developers moving to Xbox and then making seriously downgraded games. And since SS2 sold like crap, and now thanks to all the hype, Bioshock has already sold 1.5 million, it's unlikely Irrational will be going back to real PC games any time soon.

Irrational doesnt exist any more, its been renamed and they were never 'in' PC games in the first place. It was founded by 3 dudes involved in system shock 2. Thats all, they arnt worthy of mass fellation just for this.

Almost all their stuff has been console ever since

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_Games

Only a fool would spend this much money developing a PC only game. They dont make enough money and for people to be able to play them a serious amount of dosh needs to be shelled out.

[Mackaxx]

Someone tell me what I am missing.

Subtlety

[SeriousMite]

For me the cost of the respawns was the ammo and health packs, playing on hard you need to make every single shot count, and ensure you use as few eve hypos and health packs as possible. It was a big time punisment Ammo isnt way too abundant. In fact, many people have been bitching about how they dont get enough.

I also played on hard and I never had any problem with ammo. Thanks to all the over-powered wrench plasmids, I did use the wrench a fair bit though.

Irrational doesnt exist any more, its been renamed and they were never 'in' PC games in the first place. It was founded by 3 dudes involved in system shock 2. Thats all, they arnt worthy of mass fellation just for this.

Almost all their stuff has been console ever since

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_Games

Actually before they were renamed last month, all they had made before Bioshock were PC games.

System Shock 2

Freedom Force 1,2

Tribes: Vengeance

Swat 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Games

Only a fool would spend this much money developing a PC only game. They dont make enough money and for people to be able to play them a serious amount of dosh needs to be shelled out.

I agree. You'd have to be crazy (or Blizzard) to make a big budget PC exclusive in the current market. I'm not a hardcore PC gaming elitist. I just don't like the trend of PC developers making less challenging and simpler games when they start making games for Xbox. When the original Xbox came out and all the PC developers started announcing they were making games for it, I actually thought this would be a good thing. PC-type games without the hassle of playing on a PC. Once the games started coming in though I changed my mind. Ever since Deus Ex 2 and KotoR it's been nothing but disappointments for me. The games are always far simpler and easier than the PC games that came before. I don't think this has to be the case. Yes, the interface is more restrictive, and the hardware isn't always as advanced, but as seen with many Japanese games, that doesn't mean you can't make a challenging game with a lot of depth. But somehow most western developers tend to make their games as easy and simple as possible when they make the move to consoles.

Are the controls screwed because they're designed for gamepads? Is the save game system an issue? Are the graphics limited by being produced on a less powerful machine (from the look of it I would say a substantial NO to the latter)? These are the sort of problems that do crop up on 'ports' and don't seem to have here.

Maybe port wasn't the right word. My complaint isn't with any technical issues. I agree the game runs fine on PC. The problem I have is with the downgraded gameplay, which is a much worse thing IMO. Like Deus Ex 2, it's a game that's been simplified in nearly every way compared to it's predecessor.

[Mackaxx]

I also played on hard and I never had any problem with ammo. Thanks to all the over-powered wrench plasmids, I did use the wrench a fair bit though.

So you specialised then...

[Mackaxx]

Actually before they were renamed last month, all they had made before Bioshock were PC games.

System Shock 2

Freedom Force 1,2

Tribes: Vengeance

Swat 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Games

My bad, 2Kgames is different to 2Kgames Australia. Even navigated to that link via irrationals wiki page.

They did try to make 'the lost' though, if im going to be particularly niggly.

I agree. You'd have to be crazy (or Blizzard) to make a big budget PC exclusive in the current market. I'm not a hardcore PC gaming elitist. I just don't like the trend of PC developers making less challenging and simpler games when they start making games for Xbox. When the original Xbox came out and all the PC developers started announcing they were making games for it, I actually thought this would be a good thing. PC-type games without the hassle of playing on a PC. Once the games started coming in though I changed my mind. Ever since Deus Ex 2 and KotoR it's been nothing but disappointments for me. The games are always far simpler and easier than the PC games that came before. I don't think this has to be the case. Yes, the interface is more restrictive, and the hardware isn't always as advanced, but as seen with many Japanese games, that doesn't mean you can't make a challenging game with a lot of depth. But somehow most western developers tend to make their games as easy and simple as possible when they make the move to consoles.

I too thought knights of the old republic was terrible, its got a helluva a lot of vocal fans though, I think they are idiots but there was a market to be tapped. Deus Ex 1 wasnt super complicated either, just kind of tricky with the storyline. Deus Ex 2 though was a totally different game in everything bar the crosshair. Oblivion was a bit of a rotten terd too, although I thought the same of its predecessors anyway. Im afraid the market has shifted big time now in terms of high end games. Everything from shooters to RPGs has been dumbed down. Halo for instance bores me stupid. Bioshock is probably the worst example of this you could have picked though as a jaded video game grump I quite enjoyed it.

Theres been some pretty cool stuff on the consoles though, lots of new ideas but certainly they have all been less complicated than the PC equivalents of yore. Games cost a LOT more to make nowdays so until they get a little more like the film industry and the market is big enough to cater for 'smaller' titles were just going to have to suck it up. Its a bit like the film industry a while back I guess. Get used to your arnies and stalones for a while. Its been happening for a while longer than you think too, just look at Ultima IX... Perhaps in japan they can get away with it a bit more, or maybe to someone from japan their 'innovative' games are pretty mundane and normal fare.

Until then we can bitch about the lack of a decent flight simulator, submarine sim or text heavy RPG and wait till the release of the soon to be butchered fallout 3, cant wait.

That said, when i look back over the years, the REALLY good PC stuff has been pretty rare. If you do a top 10 then its very spread out. Its a bit of a case of only remembering the sunny days when really those days were interspaced with a lot of boring shit.

Still a bust boy so im off.

[Inigima]

I think the examples you picked (Deus Ex 2, KOTOR) are just shite games. Console games aren't all easy -- Ninja Gaiden Black made me want to rip my hair out.

[DJDonegal]

Let's not even start on Ninja Gaiden Black.

On topic - Finally got Bioshock! Just defeated my first Big Daddy last night and I'm itching to get home and do some more damage

[Mackaxx]

By that logic you dont buy many games do you?

[zakalwe7]

Just bought it at the weekend.

Me and needle had a go playing through it last night. First game she's played with an xbox controller or at all since about 1999, so was quite fun

[DJDonegal]

£40 for a game (even if it does last just 16 hours).

£40 minimum for a night on the lash with some mates for 7 hours. Half of which I don't remember due to inebriation.

I know which is more worth it (talking from a purely fiscal point of view).

[zakalwe7]

Zak, Im trying to get my wife to play video games. She hasnt played anything since Mario Kart, and seems intimidated by all the paddles and triggers and giant X's on the controller. Any tips?

Too early to say. She just moved into the flat at the weekend. She used to be a bit of a Doom addict and played some Star Wars game back in the mid-90s but hasn't played anything since. So no tips yet

[squiddly]

I like.

Not as much as SS2 of course, but good for a regular fps.

[Mackaxx]

If I play the demo, and its good, I'll consider it worth it. If it has multiplayer (good multiplayer) I'd also consider buying it. No amount of 'atmosphere' is worth 50 dollars if it gives a total of 16 hours of said 'atmosphere'.

And no, I don't buy many games. Most games are a waste of money, especially games that have no multiplayer component. I've gotten my money's worth out of my gears of war CD, definitely have not gotten my money's worth out of my Dead Rising CD, because the game has no multiplayer and it blows. End of story.

So, like i implied, if it doesnt have multiplayer then its off the cards for you. Your call of course.

I like the night out comparison too, people sometimes forget just how much money they piss away on a night out. Dont interpret this as choosing a game over a night out, just a comparative example. Hell, ive spent more on dinner for me alone than a computer game cost, and in the end that just leads to a satisfying shit. Worse still it could be on one good bottle of wine or cognac. End point is that it doesnt represent a massive waste of cash.

[Mackaxx]

I like.

Not as much as SS2 of course, but good for a regular fps.

The sooner I stopped thinkng hey this isnt ss3 (which it certanly isnt) the sooner I started enjoying the game.

It took 2 goes of the demo to get to this stage

[Freudas]

The sooner I stopped thinkng hey this isnt ss3 (which it certanly isnt) the sooner I started enjoying the game.

It took 2 goes of the demo to get to this stage

Yeah this is definitely the problem that a lot of people are having IMO. I mean, I loved SS2 as well but I realize this is not a sequel to the game in any way.

[Inigima]

Coco, for getting the wife into it -- wean her on slowly with Live Arcade.

[Mackaxx]

I would much rather spend my money on drugs or condoms or the fucking electric bill than a single player game. YMMV. I dont have the money to be dicking around buying whatever comes out.

Opt for drugs over the condoms, the contraceptive pill works out heaps cheaper and it sometimes results in moderate breast growth.

Then with the money you save you can buy bioshock, or just look at boobies.