Bioshock - Review @ Gamers With Jobs

[magerette]

Another review of Bioshock, this one manages to be extremely positive and in-depth without being totally blind to a few flaws:

Bioshock is good, maybe great, maybe eventually an all-time classic. It's far too soon to crown those latter qualities simply as a matter of principle, but the words dance at my fingertips aching to be let loose in a flood of feel-good hyperbole. Bioshock is worth its sixty dollar price tag within the first few levels, and the rest of the game is the icing on the cake if you eat cakes with nineteen layers of icing. Relax, I'm not going to spoil any plot points for you, but in the interest of objectivity I am going to offer a few points of criticism to be considered along with the carnival parade of deserved and endless praise being doled out apparently by the entire internet. But throughout the entire exercise it is important to keep in mind that this game is a sublimely fun work of seemingly unlimited creativity.

More information.

 

[woges]

"If you own an Xbox 360 or a PC, then there's simply no viable excuse for not rushing out to pick up the game. It is a must-own, a system-seller, an automatic game-of-the-year candidate, and other such bite-sized, box-worthy, quotes. It's an uncommon pleasure when a company meets or exceeds the lofty expectations of a demanding fan base, so I'm happy to offer credit where credit is due. Bioshock is simply the best single player game I've played in years."

I would say that is still a very positive review!

 

[txa1265]

I think it is interesting to see the criticisms start to roll out ... because contrary to what some reviews might lead you to think - Bioshock is *not* perfect. It is a fantastic game, but I think it is a disservice to not inform people of frustrations.

 

[doctor_kaz]

I think it is interesting to see the criticisms start to roll out ... because contrary to what some reviews might lead you to think - Bioshock is *not* perfect. It is a fantastic game, but I think it is a disservice to not inform people of frustrations.

I agree wholeheartedly. In my book, Bioshock wins the 2007 "Kool Aid Award". It's the game that all of the gaming media labels as "perfect", but in reality, it's far from it. Past "Kool Aid" games include Halo, Black and White, Jade Empire, and Oblivion.

One of the primary traits of a "Kool Aid" game is one huge glaring flaw that everyone either completely ignores or lauds as some kind of superb innovation. With Halo it was the horrible level design and the repetitiveness. With Oblivion, it was shitty level scaling. With Bioshock, it's the complete, utter lack of challenge that comes from the complete absence of a death penalty. It's funny -- Prey used this idea a year ago and did a better job of it, and the same people talking about Bioshock like it's the second coming of Jesus said that it was stupid when Prey did it. And then there's the overall mediocrity of combat and the game's first person shooter mechanics. The level design is almost totally linear and interactivity with the environment is limited to the usual Havok physics, exploding barrels, and electrifying water (which is a gimmick like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic's kicking people onto spikes).

I enjoy the game immensely and I have a major mancrush on Ken Levine, but the reviews that I am reading for Bioshock are getting ridiculous. System Shock 2 was more innovative and ambitious, and if you ask me, so was Freedom Force. Bioshock is an updated version of System Shock 2. As far as I can tell, there's not a new or an original idea in it of significance. As far as FPS's go, Far Cry and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. were both more ambitious and ground-breaking.

 

[woges]

Found my first real disappointing aspect I posted over at cult of rapture:

"While exploring the surgery level I chanced upon the Flame and Telekinesis plasmids before the scripted Steinman scene of him blowing up and blocking the passage.

Upon reaching that scene my telekinesis plasmid was removed and reverted back to fire and the ice blocked passage was completely reset so the same area must be rehacked etc etc.

I found that a bit... well rubbish."

It is a great game but it still needs some work in areas.

 

[curiously undead]

good thing people are entitled to their own opinions...

 

[doctor_kaz]

good thing people are entitled to their own opinions...

I agree with you there wholeheartedly, but I think that the occasional episodes of groupthink that the gaming journalism profession seems to develop are bad for gaming in general. Why is it so hard to find a review from someone who seems like he or she actually has some long-term gaming experience or some perspective on how innovative this game is?

 

[magerette]

It's sad, in a way, to see all the hysteria. As if people have given up on ever seeing a really good game again, and when one comes along it's like they've found Jesus.

Was Black & White really this bad? I guess it was, really. Surely Bioshock will stand up a bit better than that, though. The last game I can remember(other than Oblivion) that got this kind of reception was KotOR.

It's obvious this reviewer loved the game, and his attempts at trying to be level headed and cite a few areas that were less than perfect were more of a token attempt to keep his objectivity. But the backlash is coming, I'm sure. And as Mike says, it would be a disservice if it didn't, but I think more moderate reviews would eliminate the need for it, myself.

 

[Thaurin]

Why does the quality of a game always need to be measured in how innovative it is? There's a limit to innovation as far as I'm concerned, some of it imposed by current technology. But also, this is why we have genres, mostly. If you like something in some way, why does a new release have to do something totally new and different? I see game reviews that chastise a game for being of the old and deprecated point-and-click persuasion. I mean, what!? If I want a point-and-click game, then I want a point and click game! In the same way, Painkiller was a good retro-shooter; marvelously linear, just point and shoot. That was what it set out to do and it made it a good game. So you've seen the gameplay before, but that doesn't mean it is a bad game. It's not like playing the exact same game twice simply because you've seen something similar in Doom or Quake.

But yeah, of course Bioshock has flaws. Who knew? I don't think anybody pretended that it didn't.

The simple fact is that this game was obviously able to provide an great emotional experience and the first reaction is what you see in the reviews. Most of the time, this just means it is a great game. It doesn't mean perfect. It does mean that it is a game that is exceptional and well worth playing.

Sometimes I think that people just want to bitch and moan about any and all bugs just for the sake of moaning. Like there are so many people who like Oblivion just fine even with level scaling; I'd say that the level scaling haters are very much in the minority, but it's the hardcore RPG and Bethesda fans that do most of that complaining. But taken at just point value, Oblivion did provide a great gaming experience worthy of the praise it received when released.

Personally, I always check the user reviews and forums for the blatantly exaggerated outcries from angry haters to balance out the professionally written reviews. Apart from having great comedy value, they do give insight into the supposed flaws in the game I'm researching and I know what I can expect from the author. "W0RST GAEM EVAR!!1" becomes, "Okay, so the game can become frustrating for people that are unable to handle flaw X." I think it's entirely possible to just not notice the bad parts, because you're having so much fun playing through the emotionally gripping good parts, which is what these rave reviews are trying to address in this case. Well-rounded reviews? All for it, but when the entire package is so well done that you hardly even notice, they do not deserve the attention that some people are screaming for.

For the record, I'm not a fanboy and I do not own the game yet.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I guess to an extent I have lost the ability to be unabashedly uncritically excited about a game. It started with talking about games on forums like these, and hanging out at the Codex certainly hasn't helped matters. All the overanalyzing has really sharpened my perception of flaws, both in games and in reviews. It has also changed my expectations of games wth regards to specific features I want or expect of games I buy. That certainly happened with Oblivion for me, which while it certainly has objective flaws, was also turned sour for me because I had such specific ideas and hopes for the game. To minimize this effect I try not to follow games in development that I might be interested in too closely any more. I am somewhat failing with Fallout 3 (the controversy is too much fun to miss), but for Bioshock and Witcher I have managed rather well, so hopefully those have a better chance of wowing me a bit.

 

[txa1265]

But the backlash is coming, I'm sure. And as Mike says, it would be a disservice if it didn't, but I think more moderate reviews would eliminate the need for it, myself.

I feel I've been misinterpreted ... I am not calling for a backlash, nor am I saying that Bioshock is *bad* in any way. All I am saying is that it isn't flawless, isn't the best thing ever in all ways, and so on. I look at these reviews now that I'm finished and have sketched my own and think "are these guys serious - did they *never* get annoyed at the interface as they create an item they couldn't carry which used critical cash or materials they could have used elsewhere? And so on.

 

[woges]

"are these guys serious - did they *never* get annoyed at the interface as they create an item they couldn't carry which used critical cash or materials they could have used elsewhere? And so on."

Well you can just look at your ammo and see what you need before just rushing into the U-invent machine. The machines tend to tell you what amount of ammo and the max you can carry. Cannot remember if the u-invent machine does but I'm sure they can patch that in if it doesn't. I'm more concerned about how the scripting works atm. If you follow the arrow and do what you are told the game is fine - but until I've played it on some more levels exploring the maps before hitting these scripts I'll hold my judgement on how well they have built the game. Apart from that the game succeeds on much of its promise.

 

[magerette]

I feel I've been misinterpreted ... I am not calling for a backlash, nor am I saying that Bioshock is *bad* in any way. All I am saying is that it isn't flawless, isn't the best thing ever in all ways, and so on. I look at these reviews now that I'm finished and have sketched my own and think "are these guys serious - did they *never* get annoyed at the interface as they create an item they couldn't carry which used critical cash or materials they could have used elsewhere? And so on.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression you were *asking *for a backlash. Nor was I bashing the game or even the enthusiasm; the idea I was trying to express was that the extreme level of praise indicated how seldom a game appeared that moved people on this level. And that in itself is a shame.

By backlash, I meant that this kind of enthusiasm breeds it's own knee-jerk cynicism, as you can see in this thread. People read the praise and can't believe any game could be that good. Then the little flaws have to be exaggerated to balance all the sweeping claims to total perfection. A more balanced review wouldn't draw out this cynicism as much, since people expect to be told games are less than perfect.

I can understand praising it to the skies, though. It's an exceptional game. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[doctor_kaz]

By backlash, I meant that this kind of enthusiasm breeds it's own knee-jerk cynicism, as you can see in this thread. People read the praise and can't believe any game could be that good. Then the little flaws have to be exaggerated to balance all the sweeping claims to total perfection. A more balanced review wouldn't draw out this cynicism as much, since people expect to be told games are less than perfect.

To me, it's not just the fact that there is all this enthusiasm, but it's the fact that about 85% of Bioshock is a stripped down version of something that was done last century. If Bioshock is a glittering masterpiece, then what was System Shock 2? After all, System Shock 2 implemented more gameplay elements and it did it back in 1999. System Shock 2 had FPS, stealth, story, RPG, adventure, horror, and exploration elements all rolled together, and it was much more revolutionary for its time. Bioshock isn't better at any of those (although it also doesn't have some of the annoying contrivances like weapons that break, so I guess that's a good thing). If Game A came out in 1999 and Game B comes out in 2007 as "Game A lite with better graphics and physics" and offers almost no gameplay improvements, then what makes Game B the messiah of gaming? Bioshock does not show eight years of innovation or improvement over System Shock 2 in the gameplay department. Other than using physics to throw objects at people, it doesn't show any improvement (except for removing the punishing difficulty, which also removed tension from the game). Most of the gaming media seems to be badly lacking in perspective on this game. I thought that Gamespot did a good job reviewing it though.