So i just finished bioshock 2....

[CooperWasRight]

But in the high scoring world of triple A titles, going from a 95 to an 88 is bigger than it might initially appear. I often watch the YouTube videos of bigger reviewers like IGN and such, but I always take it with a pinch of salt (i.e. how did the publishers lean on you for this review, I wonder?) ... mainly sticking to what appears to be fact, based on the footage and the review itself ... although I look at more reviews than one, naturally. Sometimes though, it's just a case of looking at footage on YouTube and seeing if I dig what I see - such as with The Saboteur, which I knew wasn't going to be a fully polished AAA title from the outset, and you know what, I enjoyed the fudge out of it. Well in the world of games an 88 is pretty high praise as no game in history has ever achieved a consensus of 100... And even in the academic world a 88 is a B+ and a 95 is a A... But mixing objective and subjective grading scales is hardly fare. Also review videos are like cliff notes lite... Generally I find all that can be obtained by watching em is maybe getting a peek at some footage from the game.. Or maybe some humor Like James Rolfe's stuff or Radium Z.. Other then that I tend to stick with trailers or written reviews if I want to get a true flavor of what to expect from gameplay or overall presentation.

[Danny]

But in the high scoring world of triple A titles, going from a 95 to an 88 is bigger than it might initially appear. I often watch the YouTube videos of bigger reviewers like IGN and such, but I always take it with a pinch of salt (i.e. how did the publishers lean on you for this review, I wonder?) ... mainly sticking to what appears to be fact, based on the footage and the review itself ... although I look at more reviews than one, naturally. Sometimes though, it's just a case of looking at footage on YouTube and seeing if I dig what I see - such as with The Saboteur, which I knew wasn't going to be a fully polished AAA title from the outset, and you know what, I enjoyed the fudge out of it. i find nowadays it goes like this score wise 10: either a console exclusive or something like final fantasy or metal gear where it HAS to be good by association with past games before anyones even played it. 98%: the expected top seller in the next sales chart. 90%: the runners up 80/8: everything else that is just as good but not high enough profile to have possible advertising to pull or company association. 75%: the more likely than not honest reviews for 'lesser games' that they can afford to be critical about. the dreaded 6/7: the lowest score on most review scales for an average game that should be made to sit at the nerd table. see jeff gurstman and kain and lynch for more info. 10%/3: a genuinely bad game that gets rated as such, also known as the once in a blue moon.

[SymphonicX]

The bottom line is that it's taken game publishers years to pile pressure on review mags/sites like IGN to get higher scores than they deserve. This last 2 years has seen it become a huge problem. We've had 10/10 ratings for games like GTA4, and near perfect scores for let downs like Bio2 and COD6. The bottom line here fellas, DON'T TRUST THE REVIEW SITES. They are biased, skewed, and totally undemocratic. Not to be trusted in the slightest. I now have reverted to the age old, tried and tested method of "word of mouth". Just reading a few opinions on here pretty much cements in my mind that Bioshock 2 is a complete waste of life and yet another petty attempt to cash in on a franchise that hasn't even grown yet.

[Danny]

Just reading a few opinions on here pretty much cements in my mind that Bioshock 2 is a complete waste of life and yet another petty attempt to cash in on a franchise that hasn't even grown yet. I could save anyone time with bioshock with one thing, it doesnt have enough to be a sequel instead of an expansion. A good expansion has tons of new areas made of the same things. a good sequel has a ton of things that make you think "wow, this is great, this should have been in the last game!" look at the dual wielding in halo 2 or the dodging in resident evil 3. Bioshock 2 has one moment like this, just one. At one point you play a small portion through the eyes of a little sister. gameplay wise its just a boring collecting part, what was good is how its presented. You see rapture in "little sister vision" where its all gold and marble and white and red silks and pristine, the splicers are all debonair gentlemen and angelic women and when they harvest you see a flash of what you just saw as fake. That was a cool 2 minute portion of a 13 hour game. I could find 2 minutes fo content that deserved to have been added to its superb predecessor. thats.it.

[SymphonicX]

jesus that's depressing. thanks for the heads up, you have defintiely saved me half a ton...

[Andy]

Now i would have finished this the day i got it, but ive been pretty sick since tuesday and had to wait till today to get back to it and frankly im not sure what to say about it now i have. The best i can say off the bat is bioshock was a story, bioshock 2 is a videogame. does that make any sense?, probably not really but its something you should keep in mind when comparing the two. The game begins and its pretty neat, your not a faceless guy in a random location he knows nothing about, its rapture. only its a little shittier. from the off there are some little touches i loved. like walking under a broken pipe and hearing in the headphones i had connected to my tv the sound of water tinkling on the metal of my big daddy helmet. or the 10 years influx of sea life invading the man made structure where some neon art deco lighting is replaced by phosphorescent coral or lichen. but as it goes on the magic quickly fades as it degenerates into a mindless shooter. Which doesnt mean its bad, just that they didnt pay any attention to detail. To use the most grating example, when you look out the windows in the first game rapture is this bustling metropolis, theres a fully detailed landscape out there- conversely in bioshock 2 at points there were a few large rectangular blocks with poorly slapped on ps2 era textures to do the same job. i am dissapoint. See, its just one of the things that make me think this was less a "this story needs a sequel" than "this sold shit tons, lets run it into the ground as fast as we can, with as many games as we can" the multiplayer, which i couldnt actually play since theres absoultely no one playing it online, starts you in a mini lobby as your characters apartment, you look out the window and its the beautiful rapture landscape, but since its only out one window and its the lobby they had to make it good, a small portion you only pass by maybe 10 times at most in game?, apparently they dont feel the need to do so. Another major gripe was how its so goddamn linear!, granted so was the first, but it didnt feel linear. In bioshock 2 everywhere suffers from what i dub "resident evil" syndrome in area design. one of the big sisters broke a window, your out on the sea floor, but can only walk along a seemingly already prepared flat path from point a to b. the grandious "your now not limited to where you go in rapture, you can even walk the sea floor" was accurate, but only to a point. in fact everything we were sold on the product has been revealed as a bigger takeback then anything peter molynuex could come up with. We could find adam slugs?, yes we can, there are three in the game for a whopping 30 adam, enough for the most basic of one tonic power up. even bigger morale choices?!?, no, not really. its still "bad guy kills, good guy sends a kitten to collage on a scholarship" "raptures enemies have evolved too"? no, unequivocally, no. That brings me to the enemies, my one biggest flaw in an otherwise average, but enjoyable enough game. 'Member the first game?, how the ai was so scripted to do this and that?, well the new guys took the word scripted far, FAR to literally. everything is the same schtik on repeat. Find a secret treasure or plasmid?, its 100% sure that you will have the game pop a houdini splicer behind you to attack you. do anything? it will pop a leadhead splicer in to attack you. ect, ect.i think you get the point. Basically the a.i in this game is assinine, rapture in bioshock felt like a real world full of psychos, bioshock 2 is full of daft, childish boogeymen with very little presence and nothing good to say for them. they shoot you, or run and heal. thats it. no longer do they fight each other, or rummage around. they only do that at scripted moments. again, why this feels like a 'videogame' more than the first. To be honest i could rag on the game design mediocrities till the cows come home, its a truly average experience that only denegrates an outstanding game of the year with one of the most 'blah' sequels to come after it. The saving grace of this game, for the most part is the story. In the grand overview it isnt that great, theres things that dont make a lick of sense, like people living for ten years in rapture but being ,not only in sound mind and unscathed, but clean cut and well dressed- thats bullshit, it just is. The enemy is basically andrew ryan with an opposites day agenda and a vagina. thats the only difference. she even heckles you through the game giving you the same "who are you to say what is right and what is wrong?" shit we got from ryan 1.0. The true story below the overlying layer of cookie cutter sludge is the story of the big daddy "Johnny Topside" and his little sister "Elanor Lamb" it never really pulls at your heartstrings like when you kill a bouncer in the first game and the kids crying over her dead "mr. bubbles" but the story keeps you involved. but the main plot point about why he is after her and what they need to do is incredibly in your face and it removes some of the emotional connection to the story. and that basically sums up the game for me, its trying so hard to be bioshock that it cannot be bioshock. The first game from its soundtrack to its art design to little things like the phrase "would you kindly?" stick with you long after beating the game. i beat bioshock 2 2 hours ago and cant remember any standout music or locations. Bioshock created a tragic, yet haunting world that was almost beautiful at points in its own way. Bioshock 2 is a true poor imitation. it is not a bad video game, its just a videogame. you kill generic monsters to save the day. the original bioshock was knocked for 'sacrificing gameplay for story', this seems to have done the opposite. whilst its predecessors plot was contrived and a bit too empire strikes back at points, at least is was well written and had a twist we didnt see coming. in this game you have no doubts how it will end. the character has no progression at all and in the grand scheme of things the story makes very little sense. Least it didnt end with a wank obligatory boss fight. Anyway, should you buy it? for once im quite sure: NO. at least, not brand new at full price. this aint a stellar game and considering this is around the same time as mass effect 2, heavy rain, final fantasy 13 and bayonetta theres many triple a titles that have had lots of care and attention put in to create a fantastic experience that are much more deserving of your hard earned money than this. im not mad bioshock 2, im just dissapointed. /rant. You design a better game Seriously though, ive been avoiding this topic while i play through bioshock 2 and having just finished it, i have to say, ive enjoyed it..

[darth los]

Multiplayer is not really my thing so I'm looking forward to the single player content. Still cool though. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/107/1070877p1.html