Just looked at the screenshots on the website and was wondering, an I the only one who thinks the whole art direction looks a little too much like Airbørn?
Same here, first thing that popped into my head when i saw the screens.
This wasn't the root of the disappointment as I said above, people just want something less shooter 2.0 and more depth.
aye, my bad.
Yeah I am in agreement that System Shock's depth was both challenging and engrossing but I am not quite sure that will resonate as well with a console crowd. I don't think the controls lend themselves to meticulous resource and stat management. And the difficulty would be pretty steep to non hardcore adopters from the PC crowd.
System shock 2 was absolutely mindblowing and even more so in coop. But how well would that translate nowadays on a PS3 or Xbox ?
I'm sorry, but they're just milking the name, and nothing else.
This. From Kotaku's report on the game, quoting Levine:
He doesn't call it prequel though and drew no narrative connections between the BioShocks we have played and the one his team is making. "I don't want to think about that," Levine said to me. "I don't think it's particularly constructive to have that conversation."
Of course he doesn't want to have that conversation, because if he did, he might have to admit this game doesn't look or feel anything like Bioshock and it was given the franchise tag for marketing reasons only.
Absolutely flawless, now the problem is that it would interfere with 2k/irrationals newfound marketbase.
Systemshock did not sell anywhere near as good as bioshock has done.
I for one would love some reason to replay these games though, but there's really no other character development route or such to take, you get all weapons, you get all plasmids.
Yeah I am in agreement that System Shock's depth was both challenging and engrossing but I am not quite sure that will resonate as well with a console crowd. I don't think the controls lend themselves to meticulous resource and stat management. And the difficulty would be pretty steep to non hardcore adopters from the PC crowd.
System shock 2 was absolutely mindblowing and even more so in coop. But how well would that translate nowadays on a PS3 or Xbox ?
The absolute worst thing about the primacy of consoles these days is that it just about means the end of games like the original Deus Ex or System Shock 2. The best we can likely hope for is something like how Bethesda handled Fallout 3, but it's still a far cry from the great action RPGs we had a decade ago.
Ken Levine is a smart guy whom I admire quite a lot, hence I will give them a benefit of doubt this time. I'm not too happy with calling it Bioshock either, but if the connection lies merely in gameplay mechanics and major themes then so be it. I would prefer this kind of "sequel" that shares no narrative connection, rather than a continuation of a finished story (as in Bioshock 2).
It might be completely different from Bioshock, or it might be a clone; we won't know until more info is given.
What I do find interesting is that the protagonist might have a personality this time around. Not only he's named, but his "relationship with Elizabeth, augmenting his abilities with hers so the pair may escape from a city that is literally falling from the sky" sounds a little bit like ICO/Prince of Persia 2008. If it does have a stronger cast of characters (I despise mute protagonists) then I'm in; even though I generally dislike FPS's.
Of course he doesn't want to have that conversation, because if he did, he might have to admit this game doesn't look or feel anything like Bioshock and it was given the franchise tag for marketing reasons only.
Because his publisher, not him, makes the final call on branding/naming of his product.
Can't say I loved it but, typing cheats, going on a rampage and trying to survive the vicious attacks of police was quite fun. Call me crazy, but I have never completed the plotline of any GTA game EVER; regardless of whether its protagonist had his vocal cords ripped out or not.
The creative director likened it to the Final Fantasy branding. Except for like 1 game all Final Fantasy games are completely unique. New characters, new worlds, new everything pretty much but they are all set in a similar style world, have similar story motifs and have an over arching game familiarity.
I see this new BioShock much like that. It seems the team wanted to do another game in this era/style hitting on some of the same political/story elements as BioShock. Hopefully it works and its not just goofy BioShock in the sky but brings some unique elements that set it apart while still having some similar elements that harken back to what made BioShock so great.
But all aspects of the game are really just up in the air at this point...
But all aspects of the game are really just up in the air at this point...
I see what you did there.
Seriously though, I think it looks really neat. While it's odd that it has the bioshock name the fact that they're comparing the world to a final fantasy styled universe seems pretty neat to me. I really enjoyed the Bioshock games but I honestly don't know if I was ready for a trip to Rapture for a third game. It's somewhat refreshing to see a new spin and one with a character that may in fact "have character."
Wow.. the shitstorm of hate on here is absolutely amazing. I guess I'm one of the few that, I dunno, ENJOYED Bioshock and its sequel, and eagerly awaits another game along the same vein of good gameplay, graphics, and awesome story.
Because his publisher, not him, makes the final call on branding/naming of his product.
And if Ken Levine's great new game was tag-team unicorn wrestling, I suppose it might have been Bioshock as well, yeah?
A few pages back, you argued with me about the name and here you are again, so I'll make this immune to rebuttal: I don't like the name. I don't care if it's Ken Levine or 2K Games or your mom who picked it. I also don't care how trivial you feel this complaint is. I'm cynical about any game that's being shoehorned into an existing IP to move copies, and I'm especially cynical when it's a successful developer doing it.
here's some humor; something I found in an old bioshock interview, which touches on my feelings on the systemshock -> bioshock
Ken Levine: The core thing is that we came back from E3 and we sort of got a lot of feedback on the game: "Oh! It's a RPG, it's an adventure game. It's a dessert topping." And you know, that's a problem. When you try to innovate you get that. When people see something new they don't know what to make out of it. But our goal with BioShock is really to make people re-consider, re-imagine, and redefine what a first-person shooter can be. It's like those first experiences you had when you first played Gran Turismo. In previous games you could choose a course and a few cars. GT broadened the definition of what a racing game could be.
And now, when you play a racing game and it doesn't have the features that GT brought into the act? You know, the abilities to tune your car, get new equipment, and make it look cool, well it doesn't feel like a complete racing game anymore. It changed the audience's expectations of a racing game. GTA is like that for action games.
It's hard to go back to simpler games after having played it.
Okay, so maybe I found Bioshock sort of boring, but the preview cinematics have always been incredibly thrilling. I love getting thrown around and eviscerated in first person in all of them. The latest is just as fun, and I enjoy it, even if I have no real opinion/excitement for the upcoming game. The abusive cinematics are just fun to watch.
This looked rather different. Don't know what, perhaps that the city didn't look as if it was in decline like Rapture. But it opens up for cool gameplay.
Off topic: I liked Bioshock 1 pretty much, especially the art and atmosphere, and I'm thinking about getting the 2nd game but I don't wanna get disappointed. Should I get it?
Off topic: I liked Bioshock 1 pretty much, especially the art and atmosphere, and I'm thinking about getting the 2nd game but I don't wanna get disappointed. Should I get it?
I've heard it's more of the same, but more refined, perhaps streamlined, but I've heard that some people don't like it as much, I'd say get it if you liked the first one, since it's more of the same.
So, will Bioshock 4 be set in a utopian city gone wrong surrounded by outer space, or a utopian city gone wrong surrounded by lava? Place your bets!
I just think it's a bit sad that the artists have to make another detailed world from scratch, whereas the designers come up with something that you'd answer if you only had ten seconds to think of a Bioshock sequel.
Maybe Bioshock 4 is Dead Space....maybe. Replace crazy mutants with space mutants, replace jack with issac and plasmids for tech gear. Both start off with a plane crash-ish.
Replies
Same here, first thing that popped into my head when i saw the screens.
Interview with Ken if you cats are interested
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/12/video-interview-ken-levine-on-bioshock-infinite/
And a joy stick stuff
(sites getting hammered atm, so heres another linky!)
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/12/bioshock-infinite-preview/
aye, my bad.
Yeah I am in agreement that System Shock's depth was both challenging and engrossing but I am not quite sure that will resonate as well with a console crowd. I don't think the controls lend themselves to meticulous resource and stat management. And the difficulty would be pretty steep to non hardcore adopters from the PC crowd.
System shock 2 was absolutely mindblowing and even more so in coop. But how well would that translate nowadays on a PS3 or Xbox ?
This. From Kotaku's report on the game, quoting Levine:
Of course he doesn't want to have that conversation, because if he did, he might have to admit this game doesn't look or feel anything like Bioshock and it was given the franchise tag for marketing reasons only.
Systemshock did not sell anywhere near as good as bioshock has done.
I for one would love some reason to replay these games though, but there's really no other character development route or such to take, you get all weapons, you get all plasmids.
The absolute worst thing about the primacy of consoles these days is that it just about means the end of games like the original Deus Ex or System Shock 2. The best we can likely hope for is something like how Bethesda handled Fallout 3, but it's still a far cry from the great action RPGs we had a decade ago.
It might be completely different from Bioshock, or it might be a clone; we won't know until more info is given.
What I do find interesting is that the protagonist might have a personality this time around. Not only he's named, but his "relationship with Elizabeth, augmenting his abilities with hers so the pair may escape from a city that is literally falling from the sky" sounds a little bit like ICO/Prince of Persia 2008. If it does have a stronger cast of characters (I despise mute protagonists) then I'm in; even though I generally dislike FPS's.
you must have hated gta 3 haha.
Because his publisher, not him, makes the final call on branding/naming of his product.
OH GOD YES
1 Was way better than 2, although i loved 2.
I see this new BioShock much like that. It seems the team wanted to do another game in this era/style hitting on some of the same political/story elements as BioShock. Hopefully it works and its not just goofy BioShock in the sky but brings some unique elements that set it apart while still having some similar elements that harken back to what made BioShock so great.
But all aspects of the game are really just up in the air at this point...
I see what you did there.
Seriously though, I think it looks really neat. While it's odd that it has the bioshock name the fact that they're comparing the world to a final fantasy styled universe seems pretty neat to me. I really enjoyed the Bioshock games but I honestly don't know if I was ready for a trip to Rapture for a third game. It's somewhat refreshing to see a new spin and one with a character that may in fact "have character."
And if Ken Levine's great new game was tag-team unicorn wrestling, I suppose it might have been Bioshock as well, yeah?
A few pages back, you argued with me about the name and here you are again, so I'll make this immune to rebuttal: I don't like the name. I don't care if it's Ken Levine or 2K Games or your mom who picked it. I also don't care how trivial you feel this complaint is. I'm cynical about any game that's being shoehorned into an existing IP to move copies, and I'm especially cynical when it's a successful developer doing it.
fin
Off topic: I liked Bioshock 1 pretty much, especially the art and atmosphere, and I'm thinking about getting the 2nd game but I don't wanna get disappointed. Should I get it?
"At least the game can start the same way as the first one, with a plane crash"
I've heard it's more of the same, but more refined, perhaps streamlined, but I've heard that some people don't like it as much, I'd say get it if you liked the first one, since it's more of the same.
I just think it's a bit sad that the artists have to make another detailed world from scratch, whereas the designers come up with something that you'd answer if you only had ten seconds to think of a Bioshock sequel.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/12/irrational-anthem-their-new-game-unveiled/
Little do they know though that things will eventually go wrong, and you the player get tossed into the midst of it.
There the player will be guided by an atlas-like character, who seems to be your friend, but things are not as they seem.
Around this spaceship you'll be able to find new plasmid like abilities from upgrade stations.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75795
It's named 'Bioshock Infinite', so it's less mysteriously named than this one, heh.