As do I. Yet I also have to keep in mind who is reading my review.
You're saying the game changes according to who reads the review?
That's an interesting position
You're saying its claim to deep, engaging story-telling wasn't one of its hooks? Right.
Perhaps I expected that from the first one, but the sequel? Not really. It's a shooter - and shooters generally don't have deep stories.
I'm not aware that it was marketed as such, which is why I'm saying what I'm saying.
If indeed it IS marketed as a deep shooter, then I'd have to disagree with the marketing. But it's still deeper than the VAST majority of shooters.
It tackles "deep" subject material, for those amongst us who take Ayn Rand seriously (I don't). BioShock already did so in a rather hamfisted, in-your-face manner. BioShock 2 just doesn't tell a good story. That's my opinion of the story; it's not good. This has nothing to do with it being an FPS. There are FPSs with stories that are less "deep" but simply better-structured, BioShock 2 just lacks good writing.
You have to take someone seriously if you're going to evaluate their writing, but that's just me.
I don't agree with Rand - but I think it's fair to take her seriously.
Bad writing? In terms of the genre, I think it's downright great writing. Basically, it's all dialogue - and I think it's very well written. It's of a very high quality - all things considered.
Because to be clear, that's completely separate here. Good storytelling has nothing to do with how deep it is. But trying to be philosophical and failing to provide a consistent story in your sequel is bad, and it is what BioShock 2 did.
Well, the term good is subjective. Personally, I can't think offhand of a good story that's also shallow.
So, yeah, deep is a requisite for a good story - to me.
You seem to have ignored my clarification. BioShock 2's level design is fine, the way levels actually play, the repetitive nature of harvesting ADAM, is not. That is what I'm criticizing, because it's not fun shooter gameplay. I like shooters well enough, but I got bored with the grind.
repetitive level design hurting the fun
That bit is from your conclusion - so that's a quote, which should make you happy. You don't seem to understand what level design is, then.
The ADAM grind mechanic is not level design - that's a boring mechanic, and I agree.
The levels are very well designed, and they feel and look different. They offer great exploration especially for a shooter.
It's great level design, period, but obviously it's a matter of taste.
Not as far as I could see, and I googled like crazy to be sure, though I could not get an unambiguous answer. As far as I could see, it uses the same engine as BioShock, which is Unreal Engine 2.5 with a lot of elements from Unreal 3 incorporated. If you can find a source correcting me, please do.
Yeah, Bioshock is Unreal 3 as well - at least partially.
Naturally, you could argue that Unreal 3 is an evolution over 2.5 - but then it's all meaningless. In a way, all Unreal 3 engine games are based on 2.5 and so on, so it sort of flows together.
To be honest, I think it's impossible to say exactly what version of the Unreal engine most games use, because they all modify it heavily.
Its art design is awesome and expansively praised in both reviews. In technology, it is aged.
Technology is aged?
Don't you think that's a bit weak, really?
The Unreal engine is what most modern games are built from - like Mass Effect 2 and Batman. Modified or not, they look the same - really. Ok, so a heavily modified 2.5 isn't as new as 3.0 - but it's hardly a big deal...
Nice cutoff. Did I say you can only enjoy BioShock 2 if you absolutely adored BioShock?
If you absolutely adored BioShock and couldn't wait for more, I could imagine the very similar BioShock 2 could fill the need, though it'll do it somewhat deceptively as it's really filling the emptiness with – well – more emptiness, not adding but at points even detracting
Pretty much, yeah.
You mean a good shooter with a deep story? It is a good shooter, it fails at the story. That's how I judged it, that's how it is. It's interesting how confident you are that you know my motives better than I do, though.
I haven't said anything about motives. At least not conscious ones.
I think you're biased - that's all.
I disagree. It's bad, it's not shallow.
I disagree on both counts. So great.
Right, so you're fine speculating about my opinion and questioning my motives, but when I ask you to back it up, you just go "I won't bother". Nice. As far as I'm aware you haven't even read my review and are basing all this on my conclusions.
Why wouldn't I be fine speculating about your opinion?
I don't care about your motives, I just read and conclude what seems most likely.
I've read your review.
Wait what? My first reply in this thread notes I'm harsh. That's not the problem, of course I'm harsh, I didn't think it was a good game, but you're ascribing dubious methodology to my conclusion.
If a game is bad - then it's not harsh to conclude that it's bad.
If a game is decent to good, then basically saying it's bad is harsh.
If you agree that's what you were being, then it seems we agree on that at least.
I think you might want to reread, and at every paragraph or subsection ask yourself "Is this criticism of BioShock 2 as a game or BioShock 2 as an RPG?" Seriously, you might be pleasantly surprised.
No, I really don't want to reread. As I said, it was obvious to me.