|FABIO2 - 2009-02-04 |
Having broken guns, requiring experience points just to use a shotgun, and playing Tetris on an inventory screen does not make your game smarter.
|SteamPoweredKleenex - 2009-02-04 |
What FPS has ever made you want to play it on a phone? Having snazzy graphics is about all they have going for them these days (aside from Portal), and Bioshock wasn't that great a game in the first place.
Yes, it had an interesting backstory, but that really had nothing to do with you. You just walked through and listened to tape recordings of the stuff that had already happened.
Did you play the whole game? Because there were a number of rather direct choices you made with consequences and emotional repercussions. Of course with the game being a metaphor for free will and the way games lead players, the guided path actually had a point and purpose, unlike most other games.
Yes. You get one of three endings: Totally good (save the sisters), totally evil (you use their Adam) or totally evil with a sympathetic narrator who pities your choice but doesn't have another script to read from (save a few, use a few).
In the end, it was a mission-quest with no outcomes other than "do it or die" with a puzzle-y boss fight.
I did like the twist as to who you were, but again, it was just another linear FPS for the most part. There were no real "direct choices" other than "save or drain the little girl."
What choices were those? The only "choice" I saw in the game was whether or not to kill little sisters, and it was a pretty terrible excuse for trying to introduce some moral construct into the game.
Especially when killing just ONE little sister automatically earned you the bad ending where your character is apparently Hitler, Blofeld, and Hannibal Lecter all rolled into one.
The game was pretty bitchin, but my main problem with it was it was WAY too easy. I'm not even good at FPS RPG's, bioshock was really the first one I ever played all the way through, and I NEVER died, not even once. Friggin Mario Bros. is more challenging.
I never even got to the boss fight. The reveal that I was a hypnotized mandroid made me completely bored as hell.
I think I finally figured out why Bioshock (and by extension, System Shock 2) never really felt like fun:
You face nothing but random scatterings of wandering enemies all game. It felt like playing Fallout with nothing but overworld travel encounters, only without scaling with your level. What is the point of giving me all these weapons and powers to develop if I just use them on the same zombie over and over?
Why couldn't they just populate the levels like a typical FPS and have you fight your way through? It's not like they set this up as a Silent Hill game, and it certainly wouldn't have interfered with the atmosphere.
They also missed a key lesson they should have taken from SS2: having wandering enemies yell the same three scripted lines all game gets old FAST. Either just make them breath heavily or go the Blood route and have them shout at me in tongues.
"Yeah, I know lots of guys who are persecuted because they killed just one little girl."
That's not the point. The point is that the game plays up this big moral choice feature as something complicated and destiny-changing, when in reality it's just a coin-toss between Hitler and Jesus. The choice changes little about the game's path beyond how much more powerful your abilities are, and even that's not such a big deal if you have any FPS skills.
A lot of games are guilty of this. They promise you a sundae of character development and choice when in reality all you get is a single scoop of chocolate or vanilla, and the chocolate is just the vanilla with generic-brand chocolate-flavored syrup mixed in.
Another point being that in the long term you actually got GREATER rewards for choosing the good path. So much for objectivist utilitarianism vs. philanthropy.
|Dib - 2009-02-04 |
Looks like some concessions had to be made with framerate to get it to run. Still looks decent for an iPhone game though.
|Rape Ape - 2009-02-04 |
It's kinda fucked up that this is the first I've heard about this.
|fatatty - 2009-02-04 |
Now if you play, the game, on your telephone. You will never in a MILLION years experience the game. You'll think you have experienced it. But you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness. That you think you've played a game on your FUCKING telephone. Get Real.
ha ha, so rad.
|boner - 2009-02-04 |
Real or not? Games like this are ridiculous on a phone with no buttons.
|Aelric - 2009-02-04 |
David Lynch thinks this is bullshit.
|Goethe and ernie - 2009-02-04 |
System Shock 2 was far far better than Bioshock.
|Mike Tyson?! - 2009-02-04 |
It looks like a really good PSone game, neat.
|Athetosis - 2009-02-04 |
5 for the "jaggies" tag. We need that on everything with old/bad graphics.
|Michael Houser - 2009-02-04 |
What THE FUCK?!
Is this a joke, like Doom for the 2600? If so, they should have done Crysis.
How excruciatingly poetic/ironic it'll be when people are playing the pipes game that Bioshock uses for unlocking things.
|Cleaner82 - 2009-02-04 |
Looks pretty good, if you have to play shit on your cell phone. In which case kill yourself.
|a flaming monkey - 2009-02-04 |
Does anyone actually play games on their phone? I suppose the most I'd ever want out of it was tetris or solitaire.
The cell phone game market is huge...
...for quick casual puzzle/bowling/flash games. I can't possibly imagine there being a large demographic of players who'd want to play Bioshock who don't own a console or PC.
|Disaster - 2009-02-05 |
Oh god dammit!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|