| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (87)

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:26PM Boomzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Having hacked bots, turrets and cameras was awesome. If you didn't like hacking you could always use the auto-hack tools, plenty of them to pick up.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:02PM ComicShaman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Perhaps some explanation would arise in-game, but I'm not even sure how there could be a Rapture after 7 years. In the first Bioshock, the entire place was springing leaks and there was widespread anarchy. Everybody was either dead or a wigged-out splicer. I'd expect the whole place to be flooded after a few years of that.

I got the impression from the very early girl-on-the-beach trailer that the next game would take place in the outer world, as the survivors of Rapture try to relocate on the land with all their weird powers and such once their city becomes one big grouper playground. But back to Rapture? Hmm.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:30PM Boomzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course back to Rapture. Rapture was one of the most amazing settings for a game ever. You really wanna have a game where you're walking around the boring old US of A looking for splicers? I'm glad you're not the one designing this game.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:03PM MLS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why would I want to return to Rapture? Surely all the art-deco design has fallen into complete ruin by now. Being underwater doesn't change that I've seen military bases before in games, and it's nothing special. The environment and creepy-insane cast of characters were what I loved about the game, and now I'll have neither of that by replacing them with military. If a sequel was inevitable, they should have wiped the slate clean and ditched Rapture for a new dystopia.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:34PM Boomzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow! You guys have no faith in the devs. You think it's gonna be a military base? Why? The soldiers are gonna be running around Rapture just like you. They're not gonna have taken it over.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:03PM Darayz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You had me at co-op

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:07PM Shmil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Would you kindly make hacking more entertaining and less frequent?

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:07PM xFenixKnightx said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, pretty much a whole new and diff game. Still should be kickass!

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:08PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed Blazur, but these storylines sound pretty forced.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 5:00PM Haon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There was a coop mod for system shock 2 also. My friend and I loved playing that even though it made it a lot easier. No all they gotta do is chill out on releasing more details. Im so weak I know I wont be able to resist looking at more stories about this.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:17PM yesteryearsfins said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
where's Ken Levine? I wanted a sequel to Bioshock but I wanted it from the original creator.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wasn't even a fan of the first game, but it sounds like they're completely ruining the franchise. No big daddies, and co op too?

Seriously, and I'm talking to you ADD filled gamers here, not everything needs to be like Teh Haloz and Gears and have multiplayer or co-op. You guys helped ruin RE 5 by putting pressure on capcom with it, and now you're having a hand with ruining bioshock. Bioshock was one of the last games on earth that needed any form of multiplayer tacked on. So say goodbye to all that awesome atmosphere you all felt in the first Bioshock, cause playing it with a loud mouthed buddy who wants to speed rush through the game blasting everything in sight is going to destroy it.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:22PM Kamizar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Stop blaming games for your failings to find good friends.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A common and predictable response from someone who either misses the point or has no counter argument. It's not a debate about having friends or not, it's about not every game being designed for multiplayer. You have plenty of online shooters and games to fill your ADD void. Stop ruining franchises that obviously don't work well with co-op. Bioshock 2 is going to be just another boring regular shooter now thanks to people like you.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
System shock 2 had co-op and it was great. Co-op does not ruin games.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:40PM Kamizar said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Humans are social animals, we like to do things with other people. Bioshock was a lot of fun, but I really do wish I could have gone through the game with a friend. They don't say there will even be complete multiplayer, just co-op. Having another person ads a strategic element to play and you have no idea how it will be implemented, you're just being knee-jerk.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I tend to agree that co-op and multiplayer tend to find themselves at odds with atmosphere and story. Even if you have good friends, I find myself thinking "hmm, I've been stopping to look at things quite a bit, I wonder if my friend minds. He hasn't complained, but maybe he's just being nice. I should probably speed it up a bit..." Even if no issue exists, just thinking about it interrupts your immersion in the game. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say it can't be done well or that it inherently ruins a game's feeling, but it certainly can be a hindrance.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:40PM Boomzilla said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just because a game comes with co-op doesn't mean you have to use it. Also, Kamizar was right, you need to find some good friends if playing co-op with the ones you have ruins the game.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, but if they design the game with co-op in mind, then do you have a AI buddy like in Resident Evil 5? Because that doesn't appeal at all. Or if you don't have an AI buddy then how is the difficulty handled and do they cut out sequences where you need two people or just not have sequences like that at all? If you don't need two players for anything, will one player feel useless when you are playing?

While a game can of course be designed well and get both single player and co-op right, it is also entirely possible that they fuck up the single player experience in the process, which incidentally sounds like what happened to Resident Evil 5. Co-op isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it worries me when every company thinks their game needs it.

And even IF both are pulled off successfully, you have to wonder if they could have spent more time and made the campaign better and/or longer had they not spent time developing co-op.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:22PM Ebylon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People waving their swords decisively proclaiming "This will be awful!" before there's much hard info... lolinternets.

After how good the original was, simply rehashing and using most of the same elements would simply feel rehashed and bland. For all you know, the inclusion of Soviet soldiers (no doubt trying to reap the benefits of plasmids, leading to what could be some interesting enemies/boss encounters designed around the Soviets tampering and testing with the 'mids) could bring an interesting new dynamic to the game; enemy AI that aren't crazed and driven insane and just wanna suck the plasmid out of you? They'd be more cooperative with each other, probably more dangerous with the inclusion of plasmids amidst their arsenal of rifles and machine guns and such.

Plus, after the first game, despite how cool it was the FIRST TIME AROUND, do you want to repeat the old "Okay, there's a Big Daddy. Here's where I run in circles dumping every single ability I have as fast as possible... okay dead!" routine? It worked well in the first game, but after a while it turned into something a little less than thrilling.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:23PM Ebylon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Addendum: Using the thing to read minds mid-combat would be sick.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think it's people claiming that it WILL be awful, but rather that from what little we have heard, it SOUNDS awful. Which hopefully 2K will hear and either explain it in a way that sounds less awful or listen to our opinions about what type of sequel we want and do that.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:32PM AwesomeTown said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know what people are talking about. It sounds pretty awesome to me.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:34PM efeez1986 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Once again hardcore gamers are ruining great games because they're forcing and pushing for every fucking game to be co op and have an online mode. Being by yourself in Bioshock added to the atmosphere and the tension in the first game. This is going to be a bigger disappointment than RE5.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would argue that the people wanting co op for this game are more casual gamers than hardcore. We want to be challenged and do things on our own first, casuals are ones who always want someone else helping them out either because they can't do it on their own or they have way too much ADD to focus on a game by themselves.

I agree with you though, the dumbing of bioshock to a regular ol shooter (which its not) is going to absolutely ruin this game.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:20PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Both of you guys could turn out to be correct when the game releases. But, I don't think it's the fault of gamers becasuse of the inclusion of co-op. Lets just take a bit of a wait and see approach before we all go jumping to conclusions.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 6:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't wait for my issue to come here.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Remember not to believe everything you read on the internet (like this rumored plot.) Game Informer is shipping out, so it should be available for you soon. Keep on the look out for it in your mailbox or in stores.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 1:56PM shaselai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
who would be the big sister? maybe that doctor at the end? i mean from the story of BS1 it seems she's the only sane person left...

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Aprils Game Informer (in my lap now), claims that Bio 2 takes place almost 10 years after the first game. THE BIG DADDY IS STILL IN BIO2! Because you play as the "first big daddy", which makes absolutely no sence seing as how the game takes place years after the first. Also GI states, "As a renegade Big Daddy, players arent assigned their own ward to protect, which means youll have to steal one away from your brothers." sounds like multiple Big Daddys to me. The next line states, "....Big Daddies guarding their little sisters all over the city." Anyways you are a big Daddy and the game is full of big daddys. The Big Sister controlls the world instead of Ryan. Aparently for every big daddy you kill the big sister wants you dead that much more. And 2k wants the game to be scarier than before. Really Joystiq you dont get GI? Lame.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now that is a much much less painful scenario, and one I would welcome a lot more than this.
Reply

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 2:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds okay. Hope the rumours about a Soviet thing going on in the game isn't because then they'd be mixing this awesome fictional underwater premise with real world events. LAMENESSS!!! IMO

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 6:29PM Soniquev8 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I sincerely doubt that plotline. It's too simple, too lazy. I want a big twist at the end of the game like the first Bioshock. I want to be isolated, I want more big daddies, and if possible, more Andrew Ryan (would you kindly?).

Russians? A private investigator? Trying to find a lost little girl? Screw that! I want to find out that I never left Rapture! I want to find out that it's 7 years before BS1! ANYTHING! Just don't insert some stupid, generic Russians so you can give another player something to do.

It's probably all an April Fools' joke anyway.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 3:04PM Duke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly on point el serpiente.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Everyone's getting worked up about the fact that it should be a Big Momma rather than a big sister. But what if, the big sister is a little sister that got left behind at the end of the last game that continued living in rapture and took on the identity of her captors/guardians.

Posted: Mar 13th 2009 6:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
kotaku has reported the same story Steven has. You play as a Big Daddy
killing other big daddies for little sisters :\ And the enemy is the Big Sister.

Featured Stories

Image

Silver Lining: I Am Alive's unfeeling world

Posted on May 25th 2012 7:30PM

Image

Game Of Thrones and the paradoxes of adaptation

Posted on May 25th 2012 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW