• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[GVMERS] The Rise and Fall of BioShock

Thick Thighs Save Lives

Thick Thighs Save Lives

Gold Member


Akin to the great musical artists and films of our time, certain video game releases have instituted a culture shift, establishing a clear demarcation line dividing the art created before its existence and after. Wolfenstein 3D earned its place among such a prestigious list, having fathered the modern first-person shooter in 1992. The 2001 launch of Grand Theft Auto 3 similarly shifted popular culture, birthing the open-world genre whose potential knows no limits. BioShock from Boston-based developer Irrational Games drew yet another indelible line in August 2007, its immersive gameplay, gripping atmosphere, and pioneering use of inventive storytelling devices elevating first-person shooters on countless fronts.
Click to expand...

The original BioShock constituted Irrational’s attempt at bringing the hallmarks of the critically acclaimed yet commercially unimpressive System Shock to mainstream audiences. It accomplished as much by coloring outside the lines of market expectations. Over the course of the series, however, adapting to said expectations deeply affected the core of the brand.
Click to expand...

Development woes affected all three entries as well, often driving a wedge between members of the creative team. That series creator Ken Levine was supposedly difficult to work with only exacerbated the tension. Internal and public-facing issues aside, many would argue BioShock never shied away from challenging the status quo, all while raising the bar. But for Irrational’s publisher, a contingent of fans, and even some developers, that bar could never quite reach high enough.
Click to expand...

This is the rise and fall of BioShock.
Click to expand...
 
C

Cashon

Banned
BioShock may not have fallen commercially, but Infinite was a pretty steep drop in quality.

2 is still the best in the series.
 
Mokus

Mokus

Member
I wasn't aware about the series falling. I love all the 3 games and the DLCs and I'm pretty sure others do too.
 
Doom85

Doom85

Member
MafiaMurderBag said:
I thought 2 was considered the least popular of the trilogy?
Click to expand...

It has the best gameplay in the trilogy (not that the the other two are lacking in quality here though, but damn that drill is satisfying), though I definitely don’t agree with those who say it also has the best story and characters. Hell, the fact it merely revisits Rapture as opposed to taking us somewhere brand new costs it some serious points in my mind. Witnessing Rapture for the first time was so immersive and crazy to me, going back again would never quite capture the same magic the way the first visit did. This is why Infinite wisely took the setting somewhere totally new.

Infinite is my favorite, followed closely by 1. 2 is great but is a bit lower and does feel like it, while still memorable, doesn’t quite capture the magic 1 and Infinite did. It’s somewhat comparable to Dark Souls 2 in my mind, a great game but just lower in quality than the other two which truly captured the magic of the series IMHO.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
MafiaMurderBag said:
I thought 2 was considered the least popular of the trilogy?
Click to expand...
The popularity of something doesn't necessarily correspond with its quality.

Especially in the gaming community. BioShock 2 wasn't directed by Ken Levine and was developed by a different team, so a lot of people wrote it off for those reasons alone. The same happened with Batman: Arkham Origins because it wasn't developed by Rocksteady and didn't feature Mark Hamil and Kevin Conroy.

If you have not played 2, give it a shot.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
Those saying BioShock never fell... Or those who don't think that 2 is the best...

How many of you have actually played through each game in the series any time recently?
 
Gambit2483

Gambit2483

Member
Cashon said:
Those saying BioShock never fell... Or those who don't think that 2 is the best...

How many of you have actually played through each game in the series any time recently?
Click to expand...
Would you kindly ease TF up..
We're all Bioshock fans here....
 
Doom85

Doom85

Member
Cashon said:
Those saying BioShock never fell... Or those who don't think that 2 is the best...

How many of you have actually played through each game in the series any time recently?
Click to expand...

Played each game twice, last playthrough was about two years ago.

Still would rank them Infinite > 1 > 2.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
Doom85 said:
It has the best gameplay in the trilogy (not that the the other two are lacking in quality here though, but damn that drill is satisfying), though I definitely don’t agree with those who say it also has the best story and characters. Hell, the fact it merely revisits Rapture as opposed to taking us somewhere brand new costs it some serious points in my mind. Witnessing Rapture for the first time was so immersive and crazy to me, going back again would never quite capture the same magic the way the first visit did. This is why Infinite wisely took the setting somewhere totally new.

Infinite is my favorite, followed closely by 1. 2 is great but is a bit lower and does feel like it, while still memorable, doesn’t quite capture the magic 1 and Infinite did. It’s somewhat comparable to Dark Souls 2 in my mind, a great game but just lower in quality than the other two which truly captured the magic of the series IMHO.
Click to expand...
I've always thought the "They did Rapture again" argument was weak. By that logic, Tears of the Kingdom would lose a lot of points.
In 2, You're exploring completely different areas, of an already amazing game world. Columbia, though bright and colorful, just doesn't have the great cohesiveness, style, or level design of Rapture. It felt more like a theme park to me, rather than a lived-in place.

Story-wise, once you get the Would You Kindly moment, the first game takes a dive. And BioShock Infinite just had way too many dumb elements in its plot to be considered good. The ending was initially an, "Oh that's cool!" Moment, but it falls apart under scrutiny.

BioShock 2 has the most consistent story, the best version of Rapture (and therefore the best location), and the best combat.

BioShock 1 has the most revelatory moment and the benefit of introducing you to Rapture.

BioShock Infinite has an interesting ending.
 
Last edited:
Lokaum D+

Lokaum D+

Member
Ogbert said:
It never fell.

‘The rise and satisfying conclusion of a wonderful trilogy.’
Click to expand...
wonderful ?

the first one is a 10/10
second one and infinite are a 7/10 at best

the games are good ( first one amazing ) calling the trilogy wonderful is a bit of stretch
 
Last edited:
Werewolf Jones

Werewolf Jones

Gold Member
Terrible game series. BioShock Infinite was a 1992 FPS with 2013 graphics and an absolute Looney Toons story.

Also the rise and fall of this YouTube channel should be a video. It USED to be good and after they asked for the audience to apply as writers the quality dropped the fuck off.
 
Torrent of Pork

Torrent of Pork

Banned
I certainly thought Bioshock 1 was overall better than Infinite, but it's kind of like saying how Skyward Sword is my least-favorite Zelda title. It's still one of the best games out there.

Seriously, what was wrong with Infinite?
 
Doom85

Doom85

Member
Cashon said:
I've always thought the "They did Rapture again" argument was weak. By that logic, Tears of the Kingdom would lose a lot of points.
In 2, You're exploring completely different areas, of an already amazing game world. Columbia, though bright and colorful, just doesn't have the great cohesiveness, style, or level design of Rapture. It felt more like a theme park to me, rather than a lived-in place.

Story-wise, once you get the Would You Kindly moment, the first game takes a dive. And BioShock Infinite just had way too many dumb elements in its plot to be considered good. The ending was initially an, "Oh that's cool!" Moment, but it falls apart under scrutiny.

BioShock 2 has the most consistent story, the best version of Rapture (and therefore the best location), and the best combat.

BioShock 1 has the most revelatory moment and the benefit of introducing you to Rapture.

BioShock Infinite has an interesting ending.
Click to expand...

Just because they were different areas doesn’t change the fact it’s the same city. Not saying the areas were bad but nothing felt as fresh. And Columbia felt just as lived in to me. It‘s just you only get to see the general populace so much early on because it doesn’t take long before citizens would be evacuated as soon as even a whiff of Booker in the area is detected for their “safety” (obviously Booker wouldn’t mow down random citizens, but Comstock certainly won’t tell them that).

The TOTK comparison means nothing to me as I won’t be playing it for other reasons, but regardless while BOTW Hyrule was nice for what it was, it was definitely not as unique an environment as Rapture was to me. I wanted sequels to constantly be giving me that unique environment since that’s what 1 did. IIRC Levine flat out said he had planned for any potential sequel to always be a different setting, but since he wasn’t the lead for 2, we got what we got.

I think people rag on the final act of Bioshock 1 too much. It’s not on par with what came prior, but it’s still great, and even if the final boss is goofy, the Little Sisters coming to your aid is awesome, and the ending is really touching.

The only kinda dumb moment in Infinite was the whole Comstock’s wife ghost part. Like, IIRC there was sort of a reason for it, but it just felt like filler. And no, the ending makes sense if you understand Infinite’s take on infinite timelines. Yes, every single moment should lead to countless new timelines, but certain pivotal moments are more focused and lead to two sets of opposing infinite timelines from that moment and its two choices. This is the significance of the seemingly meaningless choice the Luteces offer Booker and Elizabeth early on in the game, there are two choices specifically, no more, no less. So this is why the baptism choice matters (and again, the baptism is foreshadowed near the start of the game), and why the decision to stop the choice to accept the baptism eliminates all of the timelines that sprang from the “accept baptism” choice.

Mind you, this is disregarding Infinite’s DLC, which while enjoyable, I found the story to be rather fanfiction-y, and IIRC just felt like an unnecessary twist of the knife to Elizabeth’s life story which was already tragic enough.

But again, in spite of my problems with some elements of it, I still think 2 is great.
 
Doom85

Doom85

Member
Cashon said:
Do you prefer games like Doom over games like Prey?
Click to expand...

Doom games aren’t really my jam (I know, it’s not the first time my username has caused confusion, I sometimes go with doctordoom as that‘s what it refers to, but Doom is just what I went with here on Gaf). I’ve yet to play Prey, it looks interesting, but it’s not a high priority for me right now.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
Doom85 said:
Doom games aren’t really my jam (I know, it’s not the first time my username has caused confusion, I sometimes go with doctordoom as that‘s what it refers to, but Doom is just what I went with here on Gaf). I’ve yet to play Prey, it looks interesting, but it’s not a high priority for me right now.
Click to expand...
I was asking because Infinite is much more of a "arena/corridor shooter" (Doom, Quake, etc) than BioShock 1 and 2, which are more free-flowing, and "immersive sim" like.

The level design and combat of 1 and 2 are so drastically different than Infinite, I thought maybe you were more of an arena/corridor Shooter type.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
Doom85 said:
Just because they were different areas doesn’t change the fact it’s the same city. Not saying the areas were bad but nothing felt as fresh. And Columbia felt just as lived in to me. It‘s just you only get to see the general populace so much early on because it doesn’t take long before citizens would be evacuated as soon as even a whiff of Booker in the area is detected for their “safety” (obviously Booker wouldn’t mow down random citizens, but Comstock certainly won’t tell them that).

The TOTK comparison means nothing to me as I won’t be playing it for other reasons, but regardless while BOTW Hyrule was nice for what it was, it was definitely not as unique an environment as Rapture was to me. I wanted sequels to constantly be giving me that unique environment since that’s what 1 did. IIRC Levine flat out said he had planned for any potential sequel to always be a different setting, but since he wasn’t the lead for 2, we got what we got.

I think people rag on the final act of Bioshock 1 too much. It’s not on par with what came prior, but it’s still great, and even if the final boss is goofy, the Little Sisters coming to your aid is awesome, and the ending is really touching.

The only kinda dumb moment in Infinite was the whole Comstock’s wife ghost part. Like, IIRC there was sort of a reason for it, but it just felt like filler. And no, the ending makes sense if you understand Infinite’s take on infinite timelines. Yes, every single moment should lead to countless new timelines, but certain pivotal moments are more focused and lead to two sets of opposing infinite timelines from that moment and its two choices. This is the significance of the seemingly meaningless choice the Luteces offer Booker and Elizabeth early on in the game, there are two choices specifically, no more, no less. So this is why the baptism choice matters (and again, the baptism is foreshadowed near the start of the game), and why the decision to stop the choice to accept the baptism eliminates all of the timelines that sprang from the “accept baptism” choice.

Mind you, this is disregarding Infinite’s DLC, which while enjoyable, I found the story to be rather fanfiction-y, and IIRC just felt like an unnecessary twist of the knife to Elizabeth’s life story which was already tragic enough.

But again, in spite of my problems with some elements of it, I still think 2 is great.
Click to expand...
I actually meant from when you first arrive in Columbia Proper. Sure, there are people around, but they may as well be animatronics. Everything felt like walking through a KKK-sponsored Disney World. It didn't feel... Organic. It felt like everything (conversations, events, etc) was solely there for Booker/the player to see and hear.

Also, Salts/Tonics make no sense in Columbia. They were just there, with barely an explanation and no users. Again... Just there for Booker. BioShock 1 and 2 wove plasmids/Eve/Adam deeply into the story of Rapture and its residents.

The Ghost Wife part of Infinite was absolutely the dumbest part of that game. Which reminds me of the kinda random ghost visions you get in the first game that aren't present in 2.

I still have yet to play Burial at Sea Part 2. I can't seem to muster the interest.
 
AlteredForms

AlteredForms

Banned
Cashon said:
BioShock may not have fallen commercially, but Infinite was a pretty steep drop in quality.

2 is still the best in the series.
Click to expand...
wtf-laugh.gif

BioShock 2 better than the first game? I'm not going to say that you're on crack, but you're on crack and I want some. Also Infinite is my personal favourite, though many people hate the ending and I agree with them.
 
C

Cashon

Banned
AlteredForms said:
wtf-laugh.gif

BioShock 2 better than the first game? I'm not going to say that you're on crack, but you're on crack and I want some. Also Infinite is my personal favourite, though many people hate the ending and I agree with them.
Click to expand...
What are the aspects that cumulatively make the first better than the second?
 
AlteredForms

AlteredForms

Banned
Cashon said:
What are the aspects that cumulatively make the first better than the second?
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything across the board. First game had a much more engrossing story, characters, environments and I would even say weapons. You're playing as one of the big daddies in the second game and whilst it sounds cool on paper, the reality is pretty much meh and nothing special. The only things the second game does better is having the rivet gun which is an absolute beast, a remote hacking tool which removes the tedium and the "Little Sister Grab" mode in the multiplayer which is a lot of fun, though the rest of the modes are dogshit. Overall it's a much weaker game, but like I said I believe BioShock: Infinite to be the best in the series, from top to bottom it's a much more polished and well-thought out product.
Duchess said:
(places head on chopping block)

Hated Bioshock 1*

Actually very much enjoyed Bioshock Infinite.

(* - nice, aesthetics, though)
Click to expand...
Yahooooo!!!!
bioshock-bioshock-infinite.gif
 
Last edited:
Duchess

Duchess

Member
(places head on chopping block)

Hated Bioshock 1*

Actually very much enjoyed Bioshock Infinite.

(* - nice, aesthetics, though)
 
Brock2621

Brock2621

Member
Just finished watching this and was pretty great. Cannot wait for Judas as it looks absolutely stellar.

As for the Bioshock reboot/sequel they are trying to do….. ehhhhhhh I’ll hold judgement until I see it but, my expectation aren’t high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GVMERS - The Rise and Fall of Killzone
2
51
2K
AndrewRyan replied
GVMERS: The Rise and Fall of Call of Juarez
Opinion Analysis Trailer
5
773
Kev Kev replied
GVMERS: The Rise and Fall of Dino Crisis
7
717
jaysius replied
The Rise and Fall of Deus Ex - GVMERS
33
2K
anthraticus replied
Alone in the Dark | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
136
7K
Alan Wake replied
Top Bottom