Your biggest fears about the game - what could go wrong?

[Rapture_Tourist]

What are your biggest fears about the game?

I fear that the thrillride of Bioshock is great, but too short. I hope the game offers at least 40 hours of gameplay.

After the stunning E3 video, I fear that the graphics might look inferior on 360 in the end. We haven't seen the game in motion for a while and some people already said they were less impressed by the last screenshots :(.

For the German version I fear that the game is too bloody for our market (so I have to import from Austria) and that the voice overs can't match the English ones. Bioshock will surely be a great game and I wish it could be brought to a bigger audience.

[witch]

Shortness is my main concern, that and the story might not be any good. This I highly doubt but something could always go wrong.

[Necros]

Well, till now everything seem to be good and our worries may be redundant. But on the other hand they might turn out to be true (and previous experiences tell me, there's a good chance for this). Anyway, we'll just have to wait about four months to find out. :)

But here are my worries:
- gameplay time: I'm quite sure, we shouldn't worry about this (based on what we know) but this is always an issue. I should note that this varies between the players' game styles too.
- AI: looks great but I'll have to play the game for at least 30 minutes to decide whether they've achieved what they wanted or not.
- marketing: I hope Take2 won't screw this up. :D

I can't think of any more right now. :)

[Timmy_Magic]

I hope the game offers at least 40 hours of gameplay.

40 hours!? Am I the only one who would be happy with a quarter of that?

I suppose it depends on your style of play though - rush through every level and you'll probably find yourself disappointed in a short game, whereas admiring every painting on the walls will get you closer to your 40 hours target.

[Rapture_Tourist]

Well, I have to admit that my fav. genres are RPGs and (action-)adventures. Those story-driven games often have a long playtime (Zelda, Final Fantasy).

I know that for shooters the playtime usually stops at less than 20 hours, but Bioshock is no standard shooter, right?

Otherwise its ok as you say: Play through quickly at 20, enjoy fully at 40 hours.

[jackinthebox]

hmm 40 hours gameplay? no prob... i'm the kind of player who examines every dust particle^^

my fears:
- balancing: there could be some problems with the plasmids making you super-invincible... or a lack of ammo...
- optic: always the same beings (i hope there are going to be enough skins)

that's all (for now^^)

[Bartekk]

If there's an unreleased game that I have totally no fears about, then it's BioShock. Seriously.

By the way, 40h? Good one. I'll be happy if IG manage to make it 10h or slightly more. But with the amount of things to do and tactics to try I think that the game will have tons of replayability.

[Necros]

- optic: always the same beings (i hope there are going to be enough skins)
I've forgotten to mention this. Though they've said it won't be a problem, I'll believe it when I see it. :D Of course it would be disturbing for only a short time, then we would get used to it. Like in Thief 3.

About the length of the game, I bet it will be at least 20h long, probably longer. :)

[redrain85]

Based on some leaked screenshots of the hacking system for the game, it didn't look too impressive. I'm hoping that I'm wrong, and the hacking system will be great.

I also fear that the game will be short. With so much effort being put into the technology and graphic quality, I hope that this won't make for a short game. Too many games fall into this trap. So much effort is put into the engine and graphics, that little time or money is left over to craft a great and lengthy game experience. I don't doubt that with Bioshock - whatever length we get - the experience will be amazing. But I hope it's more than 20 hours of gameplay.

[Xerxes]

My main concern is a fire/flood/tornado/nuclear bomb/etc. (you get the picture) hitting Irrational's office and the game never coming out :(:(:(

[Gabby_Hayes]

Honestly if I can sit in a world gone wrong far away from sunlight where things that could be me or are what I'm becoming lurk around every blood stained Art Deco corner then I'm set.

With all the ecosystem kill combos being hinted at in the podcasts and interviews I'm hoping that this could be the first sandbox FPS. All the polish and fun of GTA with the capacity to play around as much as you want.

Now my real fear is the achievements being either too boring to garner more support, and sales, from X360 Live customers or too tacked on and invasive to ruin my experience of making someone's philisophical fantasy land even more dystopian.

[a rabid chicken]

I hope that the game will be long enough as well. Honestly, I don't really get why anyone would ever want the game to be shorter. I think 40 hours is also about what I would expect, but longer is better. Less than 30 hours and I would probably be relatively disappointed.
In addition, I worry about the cross-platform development and how that's being handled. I hope the interface is good and PC-oriented (on the PC version of course) and none of the gameplay elements are simplified. I also hope we get a real inventory system. My last big worry is that the RPG elements will be bad. We don't have much information yet, but so far I'm a bit worried that there will be no real character building and not much depth but hopefully we'll get more information about this soon. To me it looks like a lot of things could go wrong, and probably some of them will, but BioShock will still be good. If nothing goes wrong though, I think it will be a classic.

[Necros]

I wouldn't count on many RPG elements. As Ken already stated this many times, this game is a FirstPersonShooter, but you can do more in this game then just shoot everything that moves. So I think it will be like Deus Ex. Only a "little bit" sicker. :D

[Shake Appeal]

1. Underestimation of the console audience.

There are a very great number of us who still feel bitter about the simplification of Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 and the apparently irreperable damage that did to those brands, on both PC and console. I am a hardcore Xbox/360 fan at this point (although I grew up on PC games, and those two franchises, along with System Shock, gave me some of my most beloved gaming experiences), so I don't subscribe to the school of thought that says co-development across PC and consoles ruins games. I think ignorant publishers and producers marketing to the lowest common denominator ruin games. I respect that 2K are not Eidos, and that Irrational are not Ion Storm, and I hope that both parties are willing to challenge console gamer stereotypes and not pander to them. We can handle complex, intelligent themes, novel game design, deep and intricate mechanics, and just about anything you can throw at us, as long as it is fundamentally fun and well-implemented. Trust me. You will sell more games.


2. Claustrophobia.

From what I've seen in screenshots (and I've seen relatively few: I self-enforced a media blackout on this game after the first in-game footage) the game areas/levels look a little small and boxy. The 360 is sufficiently powerful that we shouldn't have to bear the blocky, tiny-roomed technical limitations forced upon DE2 and T3 by the decrepit Xbox. I understand if small areas are intentional game design to contribute to the player's feeling of being trapped and isolated, but I'd like the occasional huge hall to really give a sense of the faded grandeur of Rapture. And I want to be able to look out a cracked, leaking window across the ocean floor and see the distant lights of far-off buildings. Please.


3. Game length.

I'm not worried about game length in numerical terms (the constant speculation re: 'hours of gameplay' in gaming leaves me cold), as I'm also the kind of person who examines every mite of dust, and also the kind who favours 10 hours of involving gameplay over 70 of Japanese random battle level-grinding. Just make sure that it is involving, that the story is coherent, well-paced, and ends satisfactorily. And incentives to replay the game over and over would be nice too (Achievements are wonderful in this regard if implemented thoughtfully).

[Da Bubs]

Im sure that this is going to be FPS length game and not RPG length, I think you guys are setting yourselfs up of dissapointment wanting 40 hours. Personally I dont really like RPGs, there are a few I like (exile III, Geneforge, Oblivion) but for the most time the killing the same weak monster for 30 hours leveling up really gets to me, that happens to be the reason I cant play Runescape

[Necros]

2. Claustrophobia.

From what I've seen in screenshots (and I've seen relatively few: I self-enforced a media blackout on this game after the first in-game footage) the game areas/levels look a little small and boxy. The 360 is sufficiently powerful that we shouldn't have to bear the blocky, tiny-roomed technical limitations forced upon DE2 and T3 by the decrepit Xbox. I understand if small areas are intentional game design to contribute to the player's feeling of being trapped and isolated, but I'd like the occasional huge hall to really give a sense of the faded grandeur of Rapture. And I want to be able to look out a cracked, leaking window across the ocean floor and see the distant lights of far-off buildings. Please.
I think you shouldn't worry about that based on the info already avalaible. :)

And I also think, Ion Storm doesn't deserve any negative opinions. I blame only Eidos. :mad:

[ckline]

From what I've seen in screenshots <...> the game areas/levels look a little small and boxy. <...> I understand if small areas are intentional game design to contribute to the player's feeling of being trapped and isolated, but I'd like the occasional huge hall to really give a sense of the faded grandeur of Rapture. And I want to be able to look out a cracked, leaking window across the ocean floor and see the distant lights of far-off buildings. Please.


Wish granted.

-Chris Kline, Irrational Games

[noir123]

1) Gameplay less then 80 hours (sorry guys but with all the shallow games out there, this will hopefully last forever).
2) Same dumbed down version then Deux Ex 2. What a disappointment that one was after the best game ever (Deux Ex).
3) Not enough customisation. The first game I played through five times, every time with different specialisation. So much fun.
4) Spawning enemies like in the first game
5) Too bloody, I am more after the advanced gameplay rather then a gory game
6) Hacking turrets just a gimmick, rather then really providing some control over an area
7) Too FPS not enough RPG (Loved System Shock 2, nice balance)
8) Too small areas. In System Shock 2 some areas were pretty big and you could explore and when you came back, the robots were still patrolling
9) Too few enemy types (again in System Shock 2 there were plenty)
10) Would love to control cameras as well and remotely access them (check who is running around in a certain area).

That is it for now ...

[Shake Appeal]

Wish granted.

-Chris Kline, Irrational Games
Happy sigh.

noir, I wouldn't usually be a fan of respawning enemies, but it was important in System Shock 2 because it meant you could never relax, secure in the knowledge that you had swept an area clean, as in your typical FPS. And I think that constant dread is something Bioshock should retain, as long as it's believeable (i.e. fresh enemies don't pop out of rooms you were just in).

I also don't think a game's length is indicative of its depth/shallowness. As I said, I'd prefer the game was involving and thought-provoking for ten to twenty hours than increasingly limp and repetitive for eighty or more (cf. Oblivion, which I would call quite shallow indeed). I'm also more likely to replay a shorter game.

[pn18]

my fears are:

-)feature overdose

-)to be way too complex (as a shooter/RPG-mix)

[noir123]

I wouldn't usually be a fan of respawning enemies, but it was important in System Shock 2 because it meant you could never relax, secure in the knowledge that you had swept an area clean, as in your typical FPS. And I think that constant dread is something Bioshock should retain, as long as it's believeable (i.e. fresh enemies don't pop out of rooms you were just in).

Agree in terms of creating an atmosphere, but sometimes this could be mightely annoying as you were running out of bullets. You almost had to move forward, rather then exploring areas, as you just did not have enough ammo to shoot all enemies coming at you. I have to admit that I would put "area exploration" before "scary atmoshpere" but then again that is me.

I also don't think a game's length is indicative of its depth/shallowness. As I said, I'd prefer the game was involving and thought-provoking for ten to twenty hours than increasingly limp and repetitive for eighty or more (cf. Oblivion, which I would call quite shallow indeed). I'm also more likely to replay a shorter game.

Very true. What I meant was that Bioshock could be over after say 8-10 hours and then you could play it again, as you would try to sneak more this time, rather then blasting everything and explore more areas and different plasmids. And again, and again ...

[Da Bubs]

2) Same dumbed down version then Deux Ex 2. What a disappointment that one was after the best game ever (Deux Ex).

this in addressed in somewhere, I dont remember where but they specificly mention the problem with Deux Ex 2

5) Too bloody, I am more after the advanced gameplay rather then a gory game

true, gameplay should come before gore, although if find there is nothing wrong with gore itself and I think in this instance it is going to be an important controbution to the atmosphere

7) Too FPS not enough RPG (Loved System Shock 2, nice balance)

I'm more afraid its going to be the other way around, Its a matter of opionion but I dont like killing level 3 spiders for hours on end. System Shock 2 had great balance

[Shake Appeal]

I'd prefer it was more FPS-driven than RPG-driven, but agree that Shock 2 was somewhere around the perfect balance and hope they aim for a happy medium like that.

Very minor fear: weapons will degrade at the same (baffling) speed as in SS2.

noir, a good way to balance respawning would be to have enemies becomes more and more infrequent after a certain number of encounters. So if you stayed in one area for a long time and killed a lot of bad guys the game recognises that and makes further appearances very rare (but still possible, and when you least expect it). Sort of like an ecosystem, the predators start to realise that a certain area is bad for their long-term prospects.

[noir123]

Very minor fear: weapons will degrade at the same (baffling) speed as in SS2.

Shake Appeal, I doubt this will be the same but I actually did like the feature quite a bit. Although you are right, they degraded fast, very fast. However, you could upgrade your repair skills and then try to keep one gun nice and healthy. Will they have the same sort of skill system as in SS2 or similar? If I think back now to SS2, I can wait to see how this game is going to turn out, it looks very promising.

a good way to balance respawning would be to have enemies becomes more and more infrequent after a certain number of encounters. So if you stayed in one area for a long time and killed a lot of bad guys the game recognises that and makes further appearances very rare (but still possible, and when you least expect it). Sort of like an ecosystem, the predators start to realise that a certain area is bad for their long-term prospects.

I like this "ecosystem" idea. They talk about AI ecology anyway, so enemies/neutrals might move around a bit.

[noir123]

I'm more afraid its going to be the other way around, Its a matter of opionion but I dont like killing level 3 spiders for hours on end. System Shock 2 had great balan

Level 3 spiders, I vividly remember those. They were just all over the place with a couple of Ninjas thrown in. This is a good example where it would be great to hack a turret and even if there are lots of these nasty buggers, keep them under your control. I remember that I tried that in SS2 as there was a turret in the right place, but it just wasn't powerful enough and two to three spiders overran it.

[noir123]

[QUOTE=Shake Appeal;515]I'd prefer it was more FPS-driven than RPG-driven, but agree that Shock 2 was somewhere around the perfect balance and hope they aim for a happy medium like that.[QUOTE]

In one Bioshock screenshot I saw all the chemical elements which in SS2 required you to upgrade your "pharmacy" skill and keep an eye on your inventory or keep a record which element was where. Loved this idea. Are they going to show up in Bioshock and what about your inventory?

[Da Bubs]

nior, you misunderstood me, I wasnt refering to SS2 with the spiders, I was refering to the fact in alot of RPGs you just end up killing the same enemys for hours in order to level up, something I've always hated

[noir123]

nior, you misunderstood me, I wasnt refering to SS2 with the spiders, I was refering to the fact in alot of RPGs you just end up killing the same enemys for hours in order to level up, something I've always hated

Yepp I misunderstood but still agree with you. I don't think SS2 has a system like Oblivion where stats are counted in the background. It is more that you have to make a conscious decision on which upgrade, weapen, game style path you want to go for.

[Da Bubs]

Yeah, I liked SS2 system a lot where you picked up items to level up instead of killed a lot of enemys. I almost certain that Bioshocks system is going to be like that. Oblivions system did have one advantage, you could get you sneak skill to 100 in about 15 minutes

[Freddo]

I think 40 hours of gaming time is an unrealistic expectation.

Granted, it depends on player style, but 40 hours would make it a far longer game than System Shock 2 and that won't happen.

I would say it's relatively safe it's not longer than SS2, considering the huge amount of man-hour work areas have today with all it's textures, polygons and whatnot. My guess would be it's 70-80% of SS2, but that doesn't really have much of a foundation. Just call it a hunch.

I don't really have any big fear about this game. There are a few minor things I may find annoying (look of splicers, big camera lights, just to mention a few), but overall I'm certain it will be a great gaming experience.

I guess my biggest fear would be a non-gaming related one; marketing. I sure hope the word of this game goes out and gets the recognition it probably deserves. So IG can continue to make games similiar to SS2 and Bioshock without being worried about the money flow.

[Xerxes]

Well for me, SS2 lasted at least 40 hours my first time around...

I guess hiding from Hybrids was very time consuming on Med/Sci and then when you get to engineering you had to hide from mad protocol droids... (I still have nightmare about the sound the cargo doors made when they opened):p

In the beginning of SS2 you had crappy armor, broken guns et a few bullets. But then when you get on Hydroponics or Security( level 4???), you start having enough skills to heal, repair, maintain, research and your ammo actually works on enemies... So you can go in, most of the time, guns blazing...

So my point is: i hope Bioshock will be really hard (and scary)... Each time I see a Big Daddy or a splicer I want to ask myself: "gosh, can I take this guy right now"...

Too bad i can't find my copy of SS2 :(

[One0Shot]

Bad ending.

[Adabiviak]

Anything could go wrong, but I'm really not worried about anything short of drastic bugs in the game causing me to shelve it. If it has a rough installation (I'm thinking of Half Life 2's initial release on Steam taking many hours for a lot of users - shiver), that would stink.

[Newbeing]

1) Glitches-Though I don't think IG has had any issue with these in the past.

2) Faulty disks or something like that. It happened with copies of Jaws: Unleashed (yes I bought the game:rolleyes: guilty pleasure) where some of the disks were defective for whatever reason. But again 2K hasn't had that issue.

3)Bad Frame rate issues- Can just really ruin the immersion. In Oblivion this actually didn't bother me that much until there there a few parts where the game was playing at literally 10 fps on my xbox 360. Bioshock, while wide open and beautiful doesn't seem as extremely taxing on the system as Oblivion's world.

4) My Xbox 360 dies before or while I am playing this game.

[Glottis]

40 hours!? Am I the only one who would be happy with a quarter of that?

I suppose it depends on your style of play though - rush through every level and you'll probably find yourself disappointed in a short game, whereas admiring every painting on the walls will get you closer to your 40 hours target.


I want a min of 20 plus hours,this assuming I race through it,at a fairly fast clip,30+ if I look at all the artwork and look through every nook and cranny.

If its a repeat of Prey,which I paid 50$ for,I will be seriously effing pissed ! Prey was a good game,and fun,but WAYYYYY too short for play time. :mad:

[Newbeing]

I'd personally be ok with the game being just over 15 hours. Most FPS now a days are around 8-10.

[Glottis]

I'd personally be ok with the game being just over 15 hours. Most FPS now a days are around 8-10.



Anything under 15 hours,would be a fairly big letdown.50+ USD for Prey,and I did not race through it,but still it only took a little over 7 hours !

Doom 3 on hard was over 22 hours.Farcry,the first time through,was over 50+ hours for me,on hard.I loved Farcry...

[piet11111]

1 game lenght it has to be 20 hours minimum
2 not as innovating as promised (i have good faith in ken levine but its still possible)
3 Bugs that make advancement in the story impossible (highly doubt this one)
4 puzzles of the fetch key A to open the red door where you need to press a button that opens the hallway to the boss fight where once the boss is defeated you get key B etc etc etc.
5 this game not working on my pc now thats something to Fear :eek:

[Bartekk]

Personally, I don't see the reason for this rush toward long playtime. If the gameplay, story, immersion is awesome I couldn't care less for lenght of the game.

Look, I'm a guy who likes to admire the environment, I like to hang out here and there in games but DESPITE THAT I don't know if there's an FPS game that took me longer than 20h. FarCry on Realistic maybe. But check this: Deus Ex took me 17-18h during the first playthrough. Now a normal game with all side quests and stuff takes me around 11-13h depending on play style. System Shock 2? Last time I played it took me around 11h. HL2 took me 7-8h (not the first playthrough). Damn it, DOOM 1? 3h. But I would not hesitate to pay for them one more time, they're awesome enough for me to do so and that's really what matters for me.

[Maniac]

I'm a first person shooter fan, I like shooting people in video games, and I don't like being stealthy. My worry is that the game will force me to not shoot people, (like Deus Ex) and the interface will be so complex it will require too large of a learning curve to play.

-Maniac

[Shake Appeal]

I got 40 hours out of my first playthrough of Jade Empire, and about 15-20 from my second. Just goes to show.

[Bartekk]

I'm a first person shooter fan, I like shooting people in video games, and I don't like being stealthy. My worry is that the game will force me to not shoot people, (like Deus Ex) and the interface will be so complex it will require too large of a learning curve to play.

-Maniac

Then what the hell are you doing here?

[a rabid chicken]

You won't have to be stealthy in BioShock Maniac, and I'm sure it will be easy enough to pick up and play.

[jam777]

You won't have to be stealthy in BioShock Maniac, and I'm sure it will be easy enough to pick up and play.

And you can shoot things, too!
:D

[Corgano]

Biggest fears, eh? Here goes:



Game interaction isn't as innovative/cool as led to believe.
Length will be too short.
AI will not function correctly. Or it won't be as intelligent as I'm thinking.
Puzzles that take forever to do just to open 1 door. So bland.
Too few varities of enemies.
All other enemies won't have unique relationships as good as Big Daddy's.
Lack of variety of plasmids/changes that you can do to yourself.
Lack of variety of guns/firepower available.
Things feel fake.
The Ending will be lame.



I could go on, but you get the idea. #6 is a big one for me. This is especially true, since they have opened with the Big Daddy/Little Sis and the Splicers in the videos. I HOPE that the rest of the enemies also have some sort of unique relationships, and aren't just fill in cannon fodder. I want them all to be part of a huge interactive ecosystem that freely roam the sphere in their specific areas, where it makes sense for them to be.

I'm thinking there may be other things besides humans too that are mutated. All sorts of sea critters to pets. That should take care of the variety problem with enemies. Who knows, mutated mice from feeding on dead corpses? We'll see...


Peace,
Cor

[ahrel]

Rats/Mice in an underwater city? Maybe, but that would be pushing it (not exactly a normal ecosystem down there. Not to mention the walls are probably metal :p.

I understand the your fear though, I'd hate for there to be too few or not enough variety in the enemy ranks.

My biggest fear is that it will be as dumbed down as Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2 were compared to their previous incarnations on PC. I hope that just because it's releasing in tandem with a console version that it doesn't mean it will end up like those games (smaller, less options, simpler combat, etc...). This should be close to or better than System Shock 1 or 2...hopefully.

[Xerxes]

I like the idea of mutated rats, they could fill the place the spiders had in SS2... But unfortunately, i doubt thell be in the game since we haven't seen any screens and the developers havent't talked about it... (to my knowledge)

BTW, Ahrel, Rats are everywhere... They can easily get on boats (via the cargo). In Bioshock, they could have come from boats that ressupplied Rapture when they built the city.

A bit off-topic but here's a story about rats :)

"The Black Death, or Black Plague, was the most devastating pandemic in human history. It began in south-western Asia and spread to Europe by the late 1340s, where it received its name Black Death. The total number of deaths worldwide from the pandemic are estimated at least 75 million people. The Black Death is estimated to have killed between a third and two-thirds of Europe's population (...)

In October 1347, a fleet of Genovese trading ships fleeing Caffa reached the port of Messina. By the time the fleet reached Messina, all the crew members were either infected or dead. It is presumed that the ships also carried infected rats and/or fleas. Some ships were found grounded on shorelines, with no one aboard remaining alive. Looting of these lost ships also helped spread the disease. From there, the plague spread to Genoa and Venice by the turn of 1347–1348.

From Italy the disease spread northwest across Europe, striking France, Spain, Portugal and England by June 1348, then turned and spread east through Germany and Scandinavia from 1348 to 1350, and finally to north-western Russia in 1351; however, the plague largely spared some parts of Europe, including the Kingdom of Poland and parts of Belgium and the Netherlands." Source wikipedia

[MarK SlamS]

Length is not a big issue for me. I know that if I found myself stuck in Rapture, I'd want to get the hell out of there as fast as I possibly could.

The thing I'm most worried about is the scare factor. Irrational knows how to do scary, so if they apply the same atmospheric know-how as shown in SS2 to Bioshock, then this will no doubt be an extremely creepy and tense experience.

My main concern lies in the fact that everything in the game is dynamic. I like to be startled sometimes. I read in an interview with Ken Levine that he hates the horror games that just have stuff pop out at you when you hit a trigger in the floor, but sometime's that's very effective. Doom 3 was extremely scary for this same reason.

Another concern I have is with the story. As we all may know, horror movies and games tend to lose their fright factor towards the end, because we've learned the origin of whatever was scary at the beginning. That mystery is what keeps you immersed and scared. Fear of the unknown.

Because of this, I can only hope that Andrew Ryan is an enigmatic prick :-)

[LowEnergyCycle]

1. Underestimation of the console audience.

There are a very great number of us who still feel bitter about the simplification of Deus Ex 2 and Thief 3 and the apparently irreperable damage that did to those brands, on both PC and console... I think ignorant publishers and producers marketing to the lowest common denominator ruin games... We can handle complex, intelligent themes, novel game design, deep and intricate mechanics, and just about anything you can throw at us, as long as it is fundamentally fun and well-implemented.

This is my only real concern. Just because I bought an Xbox360 doesn't mean I'm a moron who needs my games dumbing down. In fact, the only reason I migrated from PC to Xbox360 is because I was sick of chasing technology just to play the latest games.

I guess there is also the fear of very few people buying Bioshock, thus terminating any future chances of games of this style, but I think that's just the cynic in me.

[Hatesink]

Honestly if I can sit in a world gone wrong far away from sunlight where things that could be me or are what I'm becoming lurk around every blood stained Art Deco corner then I'm set.As long as I have an Xbox 360 and a copy of BioShock, then, me too! :p ;)

Personally I dont really like RPGs...killing the same weak monster for 30 hours leveling up really gets to meAs a rule I don't like RPGs either (although there are exceptions). Table top / pen & pencil gaming is a social event, and developed/evolved as a fusion of the rules set with a group of players enjoying a social interaction— it's more than the sum of its parts, with the rules set being developed and adapted in accordance with and to facilitate a social interaction. To try and totally recreate a pen & pencil RPG in a desktop or console format for a single player is basically really only reproducing a small fraction of the experience. It's like trying to create a totally authentic and accurate poker night simulation— impossible.


2) Same dumbed down version then Deux Ex 2. What a disappointment that one was after the best game ever (Deux Ex).The powers/character upgrades didn't compliment each other. It's like they designed two ideal character types and then split them apart and divided the skills between two less specialised paths. I keep meaning to try and trace some cheat codes so that I can re-configure the player character with skills that compliment each other. That way it might be a lot more interesting to play through the game.

3) Not enough customisation. The first game I played through five times, every time with different specialisation. So much fun.I agree, but I think that character specialisation can sometimes be too limited. For example, you either have to build a specialised character or have a broader range of diluted skills generally meaning a character with mediocre abilities. Class systems and races work for a table-top/pen&paper game because that type of game will generally have a much wider scope and have a much less controlled and/or much less specifically defined field. When it comes to desk-top/computer gaming, characters organised in terms of class and race are described with much too broad a brush, especially since we're essentially (or at least potentially) dealing with known quantities in a fully defined and controlled/controllable environment.

I'd like to see a game with sub-strands to the character design. For example rather than having to decide to be a pure, dedicated weapons expert; a pure, dedicated hacker; or a diluted mixture of the two, (with only half the skill points in each specialty) I'd rather be able to pick a specific weapon and specific skills to specialise in, regardless of their type. For instance, you might be a pistol expert with a specialty for hacking doors but who is awful with a shotgun and couldn't hack a turret if his life depended on it. That way you can fine-tune your character to the environment and the specific threats it presents in a way that compliments your own personal playing style...

...which is the kind of system that BioShock seems to be offering. I guess my fear is that the character creation/definition system doesn't turn out to be that flexible.

4) Spawning enemies like in the first game
noir, I wouldn't usually be a fan of respawning enemies, but it was important in System Shock 2 because it meant you could never relax, secure in the knowledge that you had swept an area clean, as in your typical FPS. And I think that constant dread is something Bioshock should retain, as long as it's believable (i.e. fresh enemies don't pop out of rooms you were just in).I don't like spawning, it screws up the spacial logic, and without a physical sense of movement (i.e. just a visual — and to a certain degree, auditory — sense of movement) having enemies spawning behind you can really screw up a players sense of orientation, which can in turn reduce the environment's feeling of authenticity.

SS2's limited ammunition and constant re-spawning basically forced the pace of the game, since the player had to either keep moving all the time or basically get used to frequent mêlée combat. It seems strange to me that the developers would create a persistent world and then try and force you to race a largely linear path through it (but having said that SS2 is a pretty old game that was absolutely spectacular for it's day, so I guess it's not that fair to criticise it now).

After my first few hours of play I basically re-started SS2, turned off the hectic, fast-paced, thumping soundtrack and set about basically taking my time exploring the environment and enjoying the 'haunted house' atmosphere. If you approach SS2 in that way after a while the frequent re-spawns tend to get irritating.

I guess people like re-spawning because of the sense of urgency and uncertainty it brings to the game, but I would have preferred to have had more lulls in the action, because they have an atmosphere all of their own (like the feeling of hiding in plain sight). I prefer thinking, planning and strategising rather than seat-of-the-pants, twitch reaction gameplay. I'd like to be able to plan my approach and secure and lock down areas, maybe with hacking mini-games etc. to secure the doors. Hopefully BioShock might actually offer that possibility.

I also don't think a game's length is indicative of its depth/shallowness. As I said, I'd prefer the game was involving and thought-provoking for ten to twenty hours than increasingly limp and repetitive for eighty or more (cf. Oblivion, which I would call quite shallow indeed). I'm also more likely to replay a shorter game. I totally agree with that— I think that in terms of gaming trends verity is the new stealth. A lot of games just get way too repetitive. It seems to be the same thing over and over for the entire game, with a new weapon dropped in every few stages to freshen things up a little.

Chronicles of Riddick is a good example. It basically has plenty of variety which is part of what makes it a really excellent game, but the PC version has an extra level added (so that you could drive a Riot Guard (due to popular demand / player expectation)), and even though the extra level included the Riot Guard sequence, it still seemed to negatively impact the pacing. The game basically really started to drag, basically because, due to the extra level, you were stuck with the same weapon for far too long (it was basically a stun-gun used to incapacitate the guards until you could knock them out with a foot stomp (technically Riddick was supposed to be breaking their necks with the foot stomp, but it just didn't feel like that was happening)). It was a great weapon, and an excellent gameplay dynamic but with the extra level added it was just over-used and really made the game drag.

With the inclusion of that extra stage, Riddick could really have used a new (more lethal) weapon towards that latter part of the game , like some kind of ammo-based electric dart gun that used the same AI animations but was basically a one hit kill. It would have introduced an extra dynamic, would have spiced things up and would have sped up the pace at the same time (maybe the player could have collected ammo instead of cigarette packets).

You won't have to be stealthy in BioShock Maniac, and I'm sure it will be easy enough to pick up and play.I'm really hoping there are stealth options. I like stealth gameplay a lot, not least because it means the AIs have to be more fully realised. I also really like the idea of hiding in plain sight— one of my fears is that the plasmids won't actually allow the player to do that effectively.

true, gameplay should come before gore, although if find there is nothing wrong with gore itself and I think in this instance it is going to be an important controbution to the atmosphereAbsolutely— but, in my opinion, the more realistic a game is the better, since it helps the player relate to the game more readily and helps in the suspension of disbelief. The more realistic the graphical presentation the more automatically a player can 'interface' with the game (rather than having to translate what's represented on the screen, into an experience).

For instance there's a game (which I don't remember the name of) where you have to shoot the coloured areas of the AI's body. The AIs are semi-transparent and the whole thing seems really surreal. There's a similar premise in Resident Evil 4, where you use a thermal scope to spot the nodes that you have to shoot, and because it's presented realistically it's instantly understandable and doesn't break frame in the sense that the other game does.

I'd hope that everything is presented realistically. For instance, in reality you can't levitate objects with the power of thought, but what if you actually could. What would that actually look like?

[MacarenaRowBot]

My main hope for Bioshock is that it will sell extremely well. However Im a little worried that mainstream gamers wont 'get it', despite the game being marketed toward the shooter audience. If it sells well, I could see alot of companies taking note about how they deal with game design.
I dont expect it to sell like a Halo, or World of Warcraft, but at very least enough to justify a follow up.

In terms of the game itself, my main hope is that the user interface works well. I Came out of Deus Ex:Invisible war very dissapointed with its poor optimization for PC control schemes.
System Shock 2, to me, had a nearly perfect interface. A real time Inventory management system that allowed you to both interact with objects in the world and your inventory simultaneously. Because of the optimization for the 360 release, does this mean there will be sacrifices to the GUI manipulation on the PC version? Or will each game be designed seperately? Im curious as to how they are pulling this off.

[Shake Appeal]

My biggest fear now is that I won't get to play it very much before moving out of the country. :(

[Da Bubs]

I suppose one of my greatest fears will be that stealth is almost competely impossible like in soldier of fortune 2, I doubt it will be a problem thought

I'd like to see a game with sub-strands to the character design. For example rather than having to decide to be a pure, dedicated weapons expert; a pure, dedicated hacker; or a diluted mixture of the two, (with only half the skill points in each specialty) I'd rather be able to pick a specific weapon and specific skills to specialise in, regardless of their type. For instance, you might be a pistol expert with a specialty for hacking doors but who is awful with a shotgun and couldn't hack a turret if his life depended on it. That way you can fine-tune your character to the environment and the specific threats it presents in a way that compliments your own personal playing style...

as a person who has fired a pistol and a shotgun in their life(A revolver and a pump action no less, the same types that are going to be in the game) I can tell you that if your an expert with a pistol your not going to be awful with a shotgun, there is just too much crossover between them, that and the nature of the a shotgun, if anything you would be good with the shotgun and bad with the pistol because it fires a spread. I see what your saying but if your going to do something like that you need a specific skill for each weapon and a general skill for firearms in general and the specific skill should have less of an effect on accuracy than the general

[Lucas78]

For me:

1. Dumbed down UI (Deus Ex 2 docet)

2. Buggy crapfest at release :P

[Hatesink]

as a person who has fired a pistol and a shotgun in their life(A revolver and a pump action no less, the same types that are going to be in the game) I can tell you that if your an expert with a pistol your not going to be awful with a shotgun, there is just too much crossover between them, that and the nature of the a shotgun, if anything you would be good with the shotgun and bad with the pistol because it fires a spread. I see what your saying but if your going to do something like that you need a specific skill for each weapon and a general skill for firearms in general and the specific skill should have less of an effect on accuracy than the generalThat makes sense. I was kind of just using those as examples, but I totally see what you're saying. I'm imagining that shotguns and standard rifles are probably the closest to each other, with a pistol being more difficult to master, maybe needing its own specialisation.

I'd love to be able to specialise in a pistol/handgun, even if it meant making (worthwhile) sacrifices, as long as I can get a one shot kill when all of the skills and upgrades are maxed out. One thing that really bugged me in any game ever was not being able to get a one shot kill with the pistol in Deus Ex. Even after getting every single upgrade possible and sneaking up to a bot and shooting him in the back of the head at point blank range he still turned around and fired back at me. Most annoying (it just made no sense to me).

In a lot of games you can take someone out with a single shot from a sniper rifle, even if you hit them in the foot, but you can't get a one shot kill with a pistol even if you shoot them in the head at point-blank range. That just basically sucks (and not only does it suck, but it blows).

At the time I was a rabid Codename 47 fan, and absolutely loved the silenced Beretta. I wanted to re-create that dynamic in Deus Ex, and for some reason I just assumed that I'd totally be able to get a one shot kill with the pistol if I were to get all the upgrades etc. but it just wasn't the case. It was totally heinous.

[PrivateJoker]

I am concerned that they will simplify some of the more complicated aspects of the previous Shock games, to make it "easier for everyone to play". Part of the charm of the originalies were the complexities and depth of skill development and deployment. Primarily I am concerned that they will enable all skills to be acquired in one play through, thus limiting replay value. Hopefully it will also be fairly difficult to beat.

[Da Bubs]

In a lot of games you can take someone out with a single shot from a sniper rifle, even if you hit them in the foot, but you can't get a one shot kill with a pistol even if you shoot them in the head at point-blank range. That just basically sucks (and not only does it suck, but it blows).

I agree with you there, where you shoot them really should be more important than what you shoot them with, with the exeption of rocket lanchers and dillingers and the like

actually the sights on a rifle are more similar to the sights on a pistol than the sights on most shotguns. rifles and pistols have front and rear sights, a shotgun useally just has a bead.

hmmm.... I seem to have somehow become the resident amateur weapons expert

[Persistence]

What are your biggest fears about the game?

For the German version I fear that the game is too bloody for our market (so I have to import from Austria) and that the voice overs can't match the English ones. Bioshock will surely be a great game and I wish it could be brought to a bigger audience.

ha, come one why playing the german version of BioShock? ;) I will definitely get the english version of the game. I don't trust the german voice-over on this one. Ok, the SS2 one was pretty good, but I have some kind of bad feeling. I have a bad feeling they "censor" the original value and impact of the game in the german version...(and I'm not just referring to the gore factor here). But I think this fear is pretty much "irrational" -haha pun intended haha get it...?- :rolleyes:

My biggest fears:

5. Bugs

4. unexciting, shallow, stereotypical storyline (very unlikely)

3. AI not as good and complex as promised

2. too much FPS and too less RPG, gameplay too simple. The harder the better for me, but I understand there are people who like it at one straight go, just hoping for some difficulty levels.

1. bad ending. I simply HATE bad endings, film or game doesn't matter! To me there's nothing more off-putting and frustrating than a bad ending after all your effort and engagement with the story and the gameplay. That's the only thing I really criticize about SS2, and I really hope the ending here is a satisfying one. Please, make a good ending!!!

[somecut8]

My concerns are the game becoming a "kid" infested game, meaning that the forums will be taken over by teenagers that post random stuff.

And that the game will be rated "T" instead of "M", making it toned down from a more realistic depiction of rapture.

[Freddo]

My concerns are the game becoming a "kid" infested game, meaning that the forums will be taken over by teenagers that post random stuff.
That happens on any official game forum by the time of the release and the next weeks/months depending on the popularity of the game.

[Raveness]

My concerns are the game becoming a "kid" infested game, meaning that the forums will be taken over by teenagers that post random stuff.


That's already happened to a degree *cough*. Freddo knows what I'm talking about.....

[Persistence]

My concerns are the game becoming a "kid" infested game, meaning that the forums will be taken over by teenagers that post random stuff.

Well, I can live with that as long as all those kids actually buy a copy of BioShock... :) Kid infested and annoying is better than Kid-free-zone but no-one buys that game. Again... :(

[Freddo]

That's already happened to a degree *cough*. Freddo knows what I'm talking about.....
All I know is that I recognise you from the CoC: DCotE forums :D

[Big Daddy Davee]

Biggest fear.......TEARING!

There is quite a bit of tearing on the latest video. :eek:

[DemonLink]

My main fear is definitely game length. I know that you can rearrange your powers, and play through in a different style and all... However, I’m shallow enough, That if I play through the game and the only difference is that I'm zapping splicers instead of shooting them, I'll be bored.

A little side fear is the small little details. Are the death screams plain? Do they sound like someone DYING or just getting a splinter under their fingernail? Does the invention system have enough tinkering? Does that annoying "squish" noise from the enrage plasmid keep playing over and over like in "hunting the big daddy"?
If I have a plasmid out, I do not want a squish noise every three seconds. I want an initial squish noise, and maybe every 15 seconds after that.
Does the splicer irritant work when the splicer already knows of your presence? Can you be in a crowd of splicers and toss it at a nearby person and run away while they are distracted killing the "target"? Do the gun shots get stronger sounding as you upgrade your gun? does the pistol go from sounding like a pop cap gun to a OMG super magnum sound?

Ranting time!
Can you hit a corpse with a wrench HUNDREDS of times and layer up blood splatters?
Can you move dead bodies? Can you pick up the cigars from the store and smoke it with the cigar showing up in your hud? Can you be female? Is it possible to get a reputation as a splicer killer where only the bravest or the dumbest splicers will attack you? Is it possible to BECOME a big daddy? Can you take the blade weapons from dead daddies and gut people? Is the game always balanced, or can you become a true monster and shred everything in your path into bloody chunks?
And finally, is the game goiung to be anywhere near as awesome as teh game I imagine in my head or is it just going to be a great idea, but an okay or a bad game?

[Persistence]

Does that annoying "squish" noise from the enrage plasmid keep playing over and over like in "hunting the big daddy"?
If I have a plasmid out, I do not want a squish noise every three seconds. I want an initial squish noise, and maybe every 15 seconds after that.

Well, you won't be running around set with the enrage plasmid all the time. You activate it when you're about to use it. Would be more of a concern if the magnum or shotgun made this sound every 3 seconds... :eek:

[Silverback]

Story length aside, I'm worried that there won't be enough diversity in the gameplay. I know that sounds ludacris right now after watching the BD vid, but it seems that's all we've seen. Is that all you do is walk around this place and deal with BD's and the other couple of entities?

[DemonLink]

Well, you won't be running around set with the enrage plasmid all the time. You activate it when you're about to use it. Would be more of a concern if the magnum or shotgun made this sound every 3 seconds... :eek:
I can understand that method of thinking, but it's basically like "It's okay just to sweep dirt under the rug, instead of properly sweeping the floor." Though most fans probably will ignore something so small, I'm not going to let someone I'm PAYING get away with taking shortcuts. :p
The best case scenario for me, is for bioshock to be so perfect, that the first time a non-gamer plays it, them become as addicted to it as I am now.

[Da Bubs]

The best case scenario for me, is for bioshock to be so perfect, that the first time a non-gamer plays it, them become as addicted to it as I am now.

you know we are all geeks because we devote so much time to something that hasnt even come out yet, which leads me to my fear, that I will be so pale by the time I finish the game people will mistake me for a zombie

[FrenchTart]

My biggest fear is that they'll make a minor name-change to one of the game assets and then the entire community will be up in arms.

GOD I hope that doesn't happen.

Gene-bank, you say?...

[Hatesink]

My biggest fear is that they'll make a minor name-change to one of the game assets and then the entire community will be up in arms.

GOD I hope that doesn't happen.

Gene-bank, you say?...It changes the whole tone and personality of the game— it's important. It could mean they're giving the whole thing a makeover. :(

[FrenchTart]

The development cycle for a game involves just that - developing, 'giving things a makeover', etc.

Just look at the concept art progression.

It's a small small change in a huge world. It's not like they've said "hey guys, we've decided to go back to the nazi lab so y'know that entire world you've fallen in love with, yeah, forget that".

[Hatesink]

But it could be an indication that they're drifting further away from the original concept, which is kind of what drew me to the game in the first place. :(

It seems they may have already done away with splicer mutations affecting your character's appearance, and the appearance of your character affecting how the Little Sisters might react to you.

One of the questions they originally sought to pose was, when does one cease to be human in the pursuit of survival etc.

Ken used to call it a Hybrid RPG shooter, now he can't stress enough that it's (just) a shooter.

It looks like the game's original concept might be too lofty for the core demographic. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[FrenchTart]

If you think back to some of the podcasts, Ken has made it clear that he wants to market the game in as simple a way as possible to as large an audience as possible. I think this is why it's always referred to as an FPS these days.

I guess time will tell in regard to the other stuff. I mean, all we're both doing is speculating so..meh :)

[GuybrushThreepwood]

There are tons of things that could go wrong, but one of them is calling the Plasmi-Quik a Gene Bank :D

[ComradeP]

The fear that it might be too "mainstream" is understandable: in the last few years, most major series have undergone changes for the worst and have become more mainstream.

Traditional RPG's hardly sell and can cause developers to go out of business (example: Troika) because the average teenager doesn't like it.

It seems that the game genres that are "allowed" to be complicated are Wargames and Simulations. A sad, sad state of affairs.

I hope that Bioshock will be a mix between mainstream a FPS w/ RPG (let's face it: it sells) elements and a traditional RPG. There's always hope.

[Sigma]

So two things - first I'm new to these forums, so hi all. Now on to the whole reason I registered

My fears - an inquiry into the banes of BioShock.

1) The ever common 'dumbing down' of the game (Deus Ex -> Deus Ex 2, Thief 3). These console systems have (or will have) support for a keyboard (I heard the PS3 does, although I don't own a PS3). I want to have a vast mapping of both instant access (for a keyboard) and tree based access (for a controller). Maybe something can be done with 'modes' to simplify the controls for consoles (e.g. exploration, combat, stealth, etc.).

2) RPG vs FPS... Personally out of Deus Ex, Deus Ex 2, and SS2, I believe Deus Ex was balanced the best. SS2 was good too, but I liked Deus Ex better. I think the basic outline for this should be experience or whatnot should be awarded not based on the number of kills, but rather experience should be based on mission objectives, exploration, or whatever else the game developers think would be a valid way to help show the consequences of the user's actions (or reward the user). Basic summery ends here, ranting about what most RPG's have become (although I still like many of them, I get tired of the treadmill leveling)

I think RPG's have fallen into the trap of 'making' you have to level up via slaying monsters over and over, rather than it just being a consequence of your actions. I think that's the core concept to RPGs in general. Leveling happens as your progress your way through the game towards the end (and hence as a side effect keeps the battles interesting along the way)

Now I'm a computer enginerd in training (still in college) and not a game designer, but I believe that the concept of leveling up has been distorted. What matters is making the user actually 'feel' the consequences of his/her actions. You do something, you get experience, factional relations change, some set of state variables change, the environment changes, etc. Leveling is not supposed to an end, but a means to show the player that this is how you play the game properly.

End rant - on to my next fear

3) The length issue... My view is complicated on this. I care more about 'meaningful plot progression' in the game than actual time. I see a well designed game as sort of a novel. Even a large novel can be read through quickly, but the size of the novel doesn't matter. What matters is the issue of whether it feels significant. Basically I say 'boo' to wasted hours leveling, very short games (if its too short than thats the limiting factor), and the story not being given the proper pace (rushing through more story than the game can handle given its length, or stretching out a story to make the game last longer)

4) I want the inventory system to make sense. In Deus Ex 2, why does a single candy bar take up as much space as a rocket launcher? I know of two ways to fixing this, one use the system like in SS series or Deus Ex or take a more RPG (well DnD in this case) approach where you have both 'space' and 'weight' constraints. Based on the user's abilities he/she may be able to carry more weight. Perhaps a bag or something of some sort will convert a tiny bit of weight into more space. Basically, just don't let something like a pill take as much inventory room as a rocket launcher.

5) I fear that the developers may be too pressured for time/to rushed to properly balance all design aspects. Whether this means there are billion bland maps or 5 perfectly beautifully crafted master pieces. It may mean a perfectly polished UI, but the story was written by a third grade drop out (I actually hope the story remains mysterious throughout game play, giving only small hints as to which 'side' you may want to be on, etc.). Its not quality! Its not quantity! A more practical approach is quality * quantity.

Personally, I dislike Valve's extreme attention to detail which causes them to take much more time on levels than whats perfect. If you replayed HL2 ten times most people would still not see everything (I'm not going to play it ten times, the game is alright, but it doesn't warrant that level of re-playability). It would be better they cut production cost and time or doubled the game play length of HL2 instead of continuing to waste attention to detail which 95% of the audience won't ever see.

6) Demands made by people on the forum. I'm afraid there will be too many demands made by people like me and the net result will mostly be the developers ignoring the anyone's fears except their own. Personally, I'd rather my entire message be disregarded than to have half the issues people have already brought forward be ignored (I'm not more important than them).

Thank you
End ranting now...

Sending kill -9 signal to all processes

Powering down...

[^ilovebioshock!]

As long as I have an Xbox 360 and a copy of BioShock, then, me too!

As a rule I don't like RPGs either (although there are exceptions). Table top / pen & pencil gaming is a social event, and developed/evolved as a fusion of the rules set with a group of players enjoying a social interaction— it's more than the sum of its parts, with the rules set being developed and adapted in accordance with and to facilitate a social interaction. To try and totally recreate a pen & pencil RPG in a desktop or console format for a single player is basically really only reproducing a small fraction of the experience. It's like trying to create a totally authentic and accurate poker night simulation— impossible.

The powers/character upgrades didn't compliment each other. It's like they designed two ideal character types and then split them apart and divided the skills between two less specialised paths. I keep meaning to try and trace some cheat codes so that I can re-configure the player character with skills that compliment each other. That way it might be a lot more interesting to play through the game.

I agree, but I think that character specialisation can sometimes be too limited. For example, you either have to build a specialised character or have a broader range of diluted skills generally meaning a character with mediocre abilities. Class systems and races work for a table-top/pen&paper game because that type of game will generally have a much wider scope and have a much less controlled and/or much less specifically defined field. When it comes to desk-top/computer gaming, characters organised in terms of class and race are described with much too broad a brush, especially since we're essentially (or at least potentially) dealing with known quantities in a fully defined and controlled/controllable environment.

I'd like to see a game with sub-strands to the character design. For example rather than having to decide to be a pure, dedicated weapons expert; a pure, dedicated hacker; or a diluted mixture of the two, (with only half the skill points in each specialty) I'd rather be able to pick a specific weapon and specific skills to specialise in, regardless of their type. For instance, you might be a pistol expert with a specialty for hacking doors but who is awful with a shotgun and couldn't hack a turret if his life depended on it. That way you can fine-tune your character to the environment and the specific threats it presents in a way that compliments your own personal playing style...

...which is the kind of system that BioShock seems to be offering. I guess my fear is that the character creation/definition system doesn't turn out to be that flexible.


I don't like spawning, it screws up the spacial logic, and without a physical sense of movement (i.e. just a visual — and to a certain degree, auditory — sense of movement) having enemies spawning behind you can really screw up a players sense of orientation, which can in turn reduce the environment's feeling of authenticity.

SS2's limited ammunition and constant re-spawning basically forced the pace of the game, since the player had to either keep moving all the time or basically get used to frequent mêlée combat. It seems strange to me that the developers would create a persistent world and then try and force you to race a largely linear path through it (but having said that SS2 is a pretty old game that was absolutely spectacular for it's day, so I guess it's not that fair to criticise it now).

After my first few hours of play I basically re-started SS2, turned off the hectic, fast-paced, thumping soundtrack and set about basically taking my time exploring the environment and enjoying the 'haunted house' atmosphere. If you approach SS2 in that way after a while the frequent re-spawns tend to get irritating.

I guess people like re-spawning because of the sense of urgency and uncertainty it brings to the game, but I would have preferred to have had more lulls in the action, because they have an atmosphere all of their own (like the feeling of hiding in plain sight). I prefer thinking, planning and strategising rather than seat-of-the-pants, twitch reaction gameplay. I'd like to be able to plan my approach and secure and lock down areas, maybe with hacking mini-games etc. to secure the doors. Hopefully BioShock might actually offer that possibility.

I totally agree with that— I think that in terms of gaming trends verity is the new stealth. A lot of games just get way too repetitive. It seems to be the same thing over and over for the entire game, with a new weapon dropped in every few stages to freshen things up a little.

Chronicles of Riddick is a good example. It basically has plenty of variety which is part of what makes it a really excellent game, but the PC version has an extra level added (so that you could drive a Riot Guard (due to popular demand / player expectation)), and even though the extra level included the Riot Guard sequence, it still seemed to negatively impact the pacing. The game basically really started to drag, basically because, due to the extra level, you were stuck with the same weapon for far too long (it was basically a stun-gun used to incapacitate the guards until you could knock them out with a foot stomp (technically Riddick was supposed to be breaking their necks with the foot stomp, but it just didn't feel like that was happening)). It was a great weapon, and an excellent gameplay dynamic but with the extra level added it was just over-used and really made the game drag.

With the inclusion of that extra stage, Riddick could really have used a new (more lethal) weapon towards that latter part of the game , like some kind of ammo-based electric dart gun that used the same AI animations but was basically a one hit kill. It would have introduced an extra dynamic, would have spiced things up and would have sped up the pace at the same time (maybe the player could have collected ammo instead of cigarette packets).

I'm really hoping there are stealth options. I like stealth gameplay a lot, not least because it means the AIs have to be more fully realised. I also really like the idea of hiding in plain sight— one of my fears is that the plasmids won't actually allow the player to do that effectively.

Absolutely— but, in my opinion, the more realistic a game is the better, since it helps the player relate to the game more readily and helps in the suspension of disbelief. The more realistic the graphical presentation the more automatically a player can 'interface' with the game (rather than having to translate what's represented on the screen, into an experience).

For instance there's a game (which I don't remember the name of) where you have to shoot the coloured areas of the AI's body. The AIs are semi-transparent and the whole thing seems really surreal. There's a similar premise in Resident Evil 4, where you use a thermal scope to spot the nodes that you have to shoot, and because it's presented realistically it's instantly understandable and doesn't break frame in the sense that the other game does.

I'd hope that everything is presented realistically. For instance, in reality you can't levitate objects with the power of thought, but what if you actually could. What would that actually look like?


UHHH do your fingers ever get tired:eek: :confused: :D

[Raveness]

3) The length issue... My view is complicated on this. I care more about 'meaningful plot progression' in the game than actual time. I see a well designed game as sort of a novel. Even a large novel can be read through quickly, but the size of the novel doesn't matter. What matters is the issue of whether it feels significant. Basically I say 'boo' to wasted hours leveling, very short games (if its too short than thats the limiting factor), and the story not being given the proper pace (rushing through more story than the game can handle given its length, or stretching out a story to make the game last longer)

It’s not complicated. What your espousing it to use playtime effectively, cut out the fat. This happens, effectively most hope, in all forms of entertainment (books, cinema, plays, music). Sometimes a game is not engaging or varied enough, so that 40 hours of it seems dragging, or 10 hours of it seems empty. I’ve played a few games recently that clocked in at about only 10 hours, but never felt short. For instance, Butcher Bay & Call of Cthulhu both managed varied settings, plot progression, thematic evolution, and interesting scenarios in order to make their 10 hour playthroughs more engaging than most 30 hour shooterfests.

[Da Bubs]

It’s not complicated. What your espousing it to use playtime effectively, cut out the fat. This happens, effectively most hope, in all forms of entertainment (books, cinema, plays, music). Sometimes a game is not engaging or varied enough, so that 40 hours of it seems dragging, or 10 hours of it seems empty. I’ve played a few games recently that clocked in at about only 10 hours, but never felt short. For instance, Butcher Bay & Call of Cthulhu both managed varied settings, plot progression, thematic evolution, and interesting scenarios in order to make their 10 hour playthroughs more engaging than most 30 hour shooterfests.

you are absolutly correct, I never considered Atlas Shrugged to be long dispite the paperback copy of it I have is 1200 pages long, I didnt think the The Stand at about 1000 pages was long. the Catcher in the Rye on the otherhand, at about 150 pages just drug on and on for me thought. So yeah, what is done with the time is more important than the amount of time.

The development cycle for a game involves just that - developing, 'giving things a makeover', etc.

Just look at the concept art progression.

It's a small small change in a huge world. It's not like they've said "hey guys, we've decided to go back to the nazi lab so y'know that entire world you've fallen in love with, yeah, forget that".

yeah, your probably right, we are taking this Gene bank/Plasmi Quik thing to far, but Gene bank is kind of lame.

[Silent Film]

I think that if the 'Gene Bank Vs Plasmi-Quik' debate is one of the biggest issues thus far, then the overall outlook of the game is looking good indeed. ;)

Anyway, I don't actually have any major fears regarding any particular feature or anything. As far as game length goes though, as long as the game has substance then I don't expect a 50 hour epic. Deus Ex took me about 35-40 hours to complete, but I felt that the quality did erode slightly in the last ten or so hours.

Of course you don't want a quality experience to end too soon either. 15-20 hours I'll be happy with, anything over that will be a bonus.

[Hatesink]

For instance, Butcher Bay & Call of Cthulhu both managed varied settings, plot progression, thematic evolution, and interesting scenarios in order to make their 10 hour playthroughs more engaging than most 30 hour shooterfests.I totally agree. I enjoyed those two games immensely. Excellent examples of how a game can be relatively short, but very varied and thoroughly entertaining (although, having said that, Dark Corners did have more than its fair share of bad-points).

I'd much prefer playing a shorter game with more variety and more replay value to having the same dynamic for 30 to 40 hours with a bunch of really tough sequences that, through forcing of re-plays and/or through sending the player round in circles, artificially extends the game's length. There are exceptions however (if they'd more fully realised the taxi-driving free-ride in Mafia (so that it was just like the taxi-driving missions in the main game) I could have played and played and played, but as it is it's not developed enough to make it fun (which is a shame because it wouldn't have taken that much to do)). That would have been almost purely sandbox however, so I guess it's not really the same thing.

Ocarina of time is an example of a game that you could literally spend months playing (if you didn't use a walkthrough), but is that a good thing? Some of the puzzles and interactions are so obscure that you might never make the associations required to complete the tasks (for me that's a quality issue). Even with a walkthrough it'd take you a long time to complete the game, so why not have included more and better clues (and not so many red herrings). If Ocarina of Time had a "Sage's Song", where you could contact the owl for context-sensitive clues and advice it would have made the game infinately more enjoyable (I know that would have meant a lot more work, but still, it wouldn't have needed more than just a fraction of that to have greatly improved Ocarina of Time with regards it's overall user-friendliness (the Zelda series isn't a 'user friendly' franchise)

I like the 'Novel/book' metaphor. Action-adventures should be page-turners, they shouldn't be poorly constructed maths exercise books or Mensa puzzle books (with a bunch of typos and web-based erratums), where you're constantly getting stuck and being forced to look at the answer page to see what it was they were trying to achieve.

yeah, your probably right, we are taking this Gene bank/Plasmi Quik thing to far, but Gene bank is kind of lame.For me it's more about the implications of that name change and what that means to me as a gamer. Changing the name of the Plasmi-quik is probably indicative of larger changes, probably as a result of focus-group testing, which might not be a good thing for more experienced gamers.

[Da Bubs]

For me it's more about the implications of that name change and what that means to me as a gamer. Changing the name of the Plasmi-quik is probably indicative of larger changes, probably as a result of focus-group testing, which might not be a good thing for more experienced gamers.

that depends on who the focus group is made up of, if it is comprised of experienced gamers we shouldnt have a problem, if its a bad focus group,like I suspect that the original xbox controller's was, nothing good will come of it.

[Mongchimp]

I have a couple of niggling fears about this game.
1) Length. Sorry to sound like a copy of cosmopolitan here but length is important.
2) A strong opponent. I want someone like SHODAN to face up to (but with a more satisfying final fight) as opposed to something like the main bad guy in F.E.A.R where he kneels down and waits for you to put a bullet in his head after you have got yourself hyped up for the final apocalyptic battle. That destroyed the entire game for me.
3) Dumbed down for the consoles. Please don't do it. Particularly for the 360. I am an old PC gamer who got tired of the upgrading cycle so I would like to see a blow for blow parity of the PC and console versions. We are not all twitch happy kids hopped up on too much cola and sugar so don't go helping us with the auto aiming and cut down options. I loved the depth and challenge of SS2 so don't go all Quake 3 on me.

I doubt that any of these will come to pass and I am waiting with baited trigger fingers for the release of this game, in fact this is one of those rare games I will buy sight unseen and would probably pay double for based on what I have seen so far.

[Hatesink]

1) Length. Sorry to sound like a copy of cosmopolitan here but length is important.I'm worried it's going to be too long at the expense of quality. I've played long games, that seem to have a lot of 'filler' rather than good quality content. If it's the same dynamic throughout (maybe with a few new weapons tossed into the chaos to keep things a little fresher) it tends to get pretty tedious after a while.

I'm personally more interested in variety and re-playability for greater longevity. But if it's already got that, and is also long, with no loss of quality (no filler, managing to stay fresh etc.) then so much the better.

[Eurhetemec]

I'm worried it's going to be too long at the expense of quality. I've played long games, that seem to have a lot of 'filler' rather than good quality content. If it's the same dynamic throughout (maybe with a few new weapons tossed into the chaos to keep things a little fresher) it tends to get pretty tedious after a while.

I'm personally more interested in variety and re-playability for greater longevity. But if it's already got that, and is also long, with no loss of quality (no filler, managing to stay fresh etc.) then so much the better.

My problem with this is that every game that comes to mind when I think of "short and varied", was, for me, an extremely dull experience, lacking any real depth or time to get y'know, GOOD at the game.

Ten hours is pretty pathetic. I'm sorry but it is. That's one weekend to complete the game. Or less than two weeks playing one hour a day. Games that are both this short and "varied" tend to be extremely shallow, because "varied" nature of the gameplay means it's impossible for anything in the game to be actually deep, as it all has to be learnt and played through in such a short time.

To me, "varied" is like saying "full of filler nonsense", clearly to you, it isn't, but when I think of varied I think of gimmicky and unecessary "vehicle sequences" in various games, "timed button press sequences", or the retarded sequences involving the Berserker in Gears of War, none of which "extended" the life of the game for me, but quite on the contrary made me go "Oh god not this bull**** again!".

What's also telling for me is that I can think of dozens of games that take 6-12 hours to finish and are godawful, but barely a handful of games that took over 30 hours to finish, yet weren't absolutely epic classics. Maybe that's just because shorter games are more numerous, but I'm fairly convinced there's a strong link between longer play-times and deeper, better-concieved gameplay. Of course a lot of long games kind of "fall apart" at the end, but so do a lot of short ones, so I see no real difference there.

I'd hope for a minimum of 15 hours just rushing through it, with a duration more in the 20-30 hour range for a playthrough where you explored every nook and cranny.

So yeah, for me, length is the biggest worry. I want a game that'll actually make me feel like I've played it, not just make me go "What wait no!", like so many modern games. I do think 40 hours is perhaps excessive for a closed-world "dungeon"-type game like this, but 20 certainly isn't, and 10 is really close to an insult, if that'd be for a "normal" play-through. For a fast-paced, intense FPS that might be ok, but for an action RPG/RPGFPS? Not really.

My other worries would be:

1) One particular combination of biomods (or what have you) is wildly and blatantly more efficient/effective than other ones, to the point where, even if you don't "like" those mods, you feel stupid not using them (this is often the case in this kind of game).

2) That they make the "plot revelation" work in a way such that I want to ignore it (i.e. get a sound recording, then have to find a record player, then have to stand in close proximity to said player for 15 minutes listening to someone drone on and on, rather than being able to do stuff whilst the plot is being revealed).

I'm not really worried about it being "dumbed-down" for consoles, because Oblivion was "dumbed-down" for consoles, yet was one of the best CRPGs ever, on any format.

[Hatesink]

I kind of have a different perspective: As a player I'd be willing to sacrifice half the average game length if it meant that the game's quality could be enhanced. For example, Dark Corners of the Earth, for me could have ended at the point at which the player-character was pulled onto the boat. They could have called it Escape from Innsmouth and spent the time that was spent on the rest of the game just enhancing that first part.

I'd rather have ten great games lasting just a couple of hours than one great game lasting ten hours.

I'm hoping that if the episodic game format takes off, we can have much shorter more detailed, more varied and higher quality games that cost much less to buy.

2) That they make the "plot revelation" work in a way such that I want to ignore it (i.e. get a sound recording, then have to find a record player, then have to stand in close proximity to said player for 15 minutes listening to someone drone on and on, rather than being able to do stuff whilst the plot is being revealed).That reminds me of a certain scene from Metal Age: "Come come gentle beggar, and stand thee just there, next to the masked man..." I loved it, but I must admit after the first few times I would have liked to have been able to just trigger the event and run off in pursuit of the next objective.

On a similar topic, if I remember correctly the exposition in Invisible War was pretty bad. Lots of twists and turns and double and triple agent's and nuances of plot aimed at confusing you as to what's truth, and all delivered in great detail at breakneck speed— "run that past me again..."

Is she one of the bad guys, isn't she? Is the organisation we're working for corrupt or is it just a matter of perspective? In the end doesn't it all just come down to individual point of view. I don't know what's going on, maybe I'm just not paying close enough attention. Why is the exposition delivered so fast? Should I reload and listen to it again? Actually, no, if I did that I'd have to play through half the level again, and it's just not that good a game.

[a rabid chicken]

You make some very good points eurhetemec, but your last remark makes me want to slap you. Nothing personal, I just think Oblivion is the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time. You're entitled to your wrong opinion though.;)

[bma]

You make some very good points eurhetemec, but your last remark makes me want to slap you. Nothing personal, I just think Oblivion is the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time. You're entitled to your wrong opinion though.;)
chicken, i'm curious to hear your reasoning about oblivion. apologies if you've already posted it elsewhere on the forum. :)

[Xepol]

My greatest fear is that it will be a great game, with a great combat system but will lack all forms of cooperative play AND at the end I will be expected to use a jeep to destroy a tank...

Anyone who has ever played Dead Rising knows what I mean...

Evolving game play doesn't mean I should be playing a totally different game at the end.

[takymen]

Well I think we all have my biggest fear: tha game being delayed even more...:eek: , you know, they already sent it to august...:(

[Jeff]

There's a couple of things I'm worried about, I'll try to explain in detail but be as brief as possible (as I skipped a good 6 or 7 posts reading through this because... well some of you are novelists ok?)

Anyway, these are in no particular order;

1) Depth of customization and skill development: I would love a fairly lengthy list of skills and abilities, but at the same time I don't want to leave things behind. In most FPS' you start with a pistol but at the end of the game you'd have to be insane to try and use that pistol. This extends to plasmid's and general enhancements, I don't want to find something in the first 10 minutes of the game and then have it be completely useless 20 minutes later when I find something else.

2) AI "eyes in the back of their head" problem: I hate hate hate trying to sneak up on an enemy, being amazingly stealthy, then entering it's "awareness" zone and having it randomly spring to life and start attacking me. If the monster can't see me or hear me, it should not be able to react to me.

3) Plot Revelations: Should be given to players in multiple formats and done in such a way that every time you get one, it's something you -need- to hear. If I get three or four plot pieces in a row that don't really do anything but meander around the story a bit, I tend to lose that feeling of being immersed in the game. Something specific and entrancing should be revealed each time you receive plot revelations.

4) High Level Invincibility: I should have a tough time killing certain enemies the whole way through the game, I don't mean just pumping them full of HP though, they should learn and adapt to my strategies and become "better enemies" not just tougher.

and lastly;

5) Overall Rushed Feeling: I'm a big halo fan, but halo 2 was so rushed that it became a bit of a joke to me, the online was fun and all but it was nothing in comparison to what it should have been. If the game isn't ready by August 21, then please for the love of all things gaming, push back the release some more and take all the time you need to release a polished product.

oh and to sneak one more thing in, don't start releasing new stages and content for downloading 3 days after release, give the people some time to play through their release copy and really get to know it and love it before you start releasing downloadable content.

[Jeff]

oi, I wrote a bit of a book there, sorry :(

[Carlos]

I don't even understand why this thread exists, the game is looks astonishing when you see it first-hand, and I'm not talking about online videos, or images.

I saw the game at After Hours. Walked away impressed with the visuals, and the physics.

[Redraf]

Don't worry, you made some good points.

My big fears for the game are as follows:

-The spend too much time on the innovation that they spend too little time on animation and controls. Its a small fear but during the gameplay video with the german commentary I felt like either the controls or the look of that plasmid wasn't up to par. I just hope not all plasmids are like that and that they fix that particular one. Also, without an aiming reticule, the odd aiming of it could have a large impact on gameplay.

-While I expect it to have hours upon hours of gameplay since it has no mult[player, I'm worried that it won't.

[gughunter]

> Anyone who has ever played Dead Rising knows what I mean...

I sold it back to the game shop before I ever had a jeep/tank battle. A little-known fact: Dead Rising's original Japanese name was "Return to the Mall Security Office." (Well, if not, it should have been.) I don't mind a little backtracking, but I sure don't like it as a core game mechanic -- especially combined with frequent pauses for area loading.

I guess that could count as one of my biggest fears for BioShock, though I hadn't actually considered the possibility until I saw the words "Dead Rising"...

[Jeff]

-The spend too much time on the innovation that they spend too little time on animation and controls.

oh one last thing that would take the number one spot in terms of priority on my list of concerns, A lot FPS' tend to have a really "floaty" feeling in terms of walking a strafing, by which I mean it feels like your characters feet have no connection to the ground and you're just gliding around a couple of cm's above the floor, this detracts -so much- from the immersive nature of the game that it's the sole reason why I don't play Elder Scrolls Oblivion anymore.

[Raveness]

Yes, I agree a shooter like Bioshock should have a degree of head-canting, head-bobbing, gun swaying, and a strong aural sense of footsteps depending on the surface walked upon; all playtested to find the sweet spot for each. All the aforementioned provide the psychological trick of the mind the player receives to immerse them in their movement even though they sitdown whilst playing.

[v.dog]

While it's more realistic, I personally find it distracting, and it lowers my accuracy. I turn it off on any game that has the option.

[Hatesink]

I like gun-sway a lot. It really helps with the sense of immersion. These days it's one of those things that you only really notice when it's not there.

As for head-bobbing. I'd like to see it included (maybe with the option to turn it off), since without it it kind of feels like you're driving a skirted robot around the environment (especially when you get hung on polygonal seams, or if it's the type of game where you need a jump button to traverse the most basic of curbs).

It's one of those things that you basically get accustomed to after a while, and if it were implemented well it could be developed to provide you with extra information about the environment (when I first tried force-feedback I thought it was going to decrease my accuracy, and to a certain extent it did, but I also found it to provide information extra to that which I was receiving through audio and visual input. It also massively improved the entire sense of immersion, and added way more to the entire experience than the slight loss of accuracy could ever have taken away from it (Plus, if it were ever an issue I'd imagine you could just massage the variables a little to compensate)).

I'd like to see gun-sway that differs in intensity and angle with the speed and pitch of your turn (I think that kind of thing might already be in use (I seem to remember something similar in Dark Corners)), that way it's an extra point of reference.

Edit: The movement of the player-character in Codename47 is exceptional (it's just so wonderfully tactile). I used to think of it more as a simulation than a game. It's a shame they screwed around with it so much.

(another) Edit: I'd like to see something like the system used in Microsof'ts Dual Strike for increasing turn-rate with a console controller. The Dual Strike's turn rate was generally far too slow, but if you pushed a little harder there was a little bit of give and it would accelerate the speed of the turn (it was somehow designed 'sprung' in that way). It'd be cool if that could be done with a console control stick. Maybe it could be implemented for instant 90 degree turns, and for instant 180s if pulled backwards. Also, adding some kind of resistance to mark the transition between running and walking would be really handy, because trying to walk (at least with the gamecube controller) needs just a little bit too much concentration, and takes too much attention away from screen (and if we're really going crazy, how about sixteen switches ;) (would have made a real difference to Wind Waker))

[boost]

I just hope the game isn't rushed. I'd rather wait another year than get a Halo 2 type game. This is one of the most anticipated games of the year, It'd sure be hell to have it be a letdown.

[PrivateJoker]

I am scared of Shodan, I think she is going to show up and create big problems in Rapture. :(

[Hatesink]

As far as I know Electronic Arts have her safely under lock and key, so I shouldn't think you'd have to worry on that account. ;)

[Signal]

I fear that like BioShocks predecessors, System Shock 1 & 2, that it will go on to be a critical success but not a financial success. Thus making us wait yet another 5 years or so for another game in the ****-Shock genre.

[king_clueless]

My concerns are it'll be dumb down for consoles. Which is unnecessary as has already been mentioned.

But also I've become increasingly annoyed with the state of released games. I very much doubt this will be the case but I don't need to be shelling out my hard earned for a half made game waiting for patches to fix it.

[Alex Pliskin]

I just hope for an overall success with single player. Since multiplayer was announced to be non-existant (which didn't surprise me, just look at the type of game it is), I just hope that the online can last in length, and have maybe a replayablity value. But with all the choices it seems you can make, replayability may not be an issue. ^_^

[BioShockWins]

hmm 40 hours gameplay? no prob... i'm the kind of player who examines every dust particle^^

my fears:
- balancing: there could be some problems with the plasmids making you super-invincible... or a lack of ammo...
- optic: always the same beings (i hope there are going to be enough skins)

that's all (for now^^)

yeah, pretty much that is what I fear because i've seen things like that happen in other games... game that have great potential but fail because of something like this :(

[Hatesink]

On a similar note, if the plasmids were underpowered, it might be equally bad. That was one of the things that put me off of Undying— the spells just didn't seem powerful enough.

[BioShockWins]

Hmm... probably being too RPG
I was reading some earlyer posts talking about how SystemShock had a perfetc balance... Eww... I looked at (video on Google Videos) it and im thinking to myself "Ok... levels... in a FPS? that waay too RPGish"
But then again BioShock looks more FPS because instead of having an invetory (yech) all you have is your Adam/Eve (whatever that is), Bullets, and your Plasmids. Making it sound a lot better

Ultimatly the video with Ken talking where it introduces you to Rapture is reasuring that it won't really have charactors that "level up" but even it that is so, the rest of the game will be good enough that I will play anyway

[Ni7r0g3n0c1d3]

My only fear is getting the wrong balance in either tayloring it too much towards the hard coregamer or the casual gamer.

Because if they make it in line with what everyone wants here, on these forums ( the hardcore gamer ) they'll sell about 200 copies (if we all chip and buy 2 each!) the whole thing will be a financial flop and a sequel will never see the light of day again, System Shock anybody????:( (Under Lock and key over at EA, and unless 2k buy the rights back I seriously doubt we'll see a meaningful sequel/prequel)

However if they make changes in line with the average joe, for example like 2K games did with Oblivion ( completely dumbing down and simplifying it from its predecessor Morrowind ) which was a massive financial sucess but imo ruined everything that made Morrowind great game ( Oblivion was a good game don't get me wrong and fixed some issues in MW, but without the depth it will never be a scratch on MW even with all its faults).

Now relating that with Bioshock I hope they get the balance right so that most gamers will be willing to try this game ( as the more who experience it the better imo) without having to sacrifice all the things that make this game stand out head and shoulders above the competiton. This is my biggest fear for this game because its an unknown....there's no set formula to this, but at the same time if anyone can nail it i believe Ken Levine is the guy to do it! :D

Bioshock FTW!!

[BioShockWins]

yeah, you called the game an unknown
one disturbing fact is that when I talk about this to people (on the internet or in real life) scarcley anyone knows what im talking about!!!
But I think Irrational has more experience in how to make games now that this one will be a winner!

[BioShockWins]

I don't even understand why this thread exists, the game is looks astonishing when you see it first-hand, and I'm not talking about online videos, or images.

I saw the game at After Hours. Walked away impressed with the visuals, and the physics.

call me crazy... but the thread is here so people can talk to eachother about BioShock... whatever its about, it is good to hear others opinions of the game

this could also lend IG a helping hand

[v.dog]

You should really edit your previous post instead of double posting.
If you want to add a quote, hit the quote button, copy it, then go back and edit your last post and paste the quote in.

[open-minded gamer]

My main concern for this game is the timing. The game looks purely amazing, but my problem is if it doesn't have multiplayer, then what will it have to keep you going on after you finish the game? That's really my only main concern for now, but then again I've heard some other valid concerns (AI, plasmids making you invincible, etc.)

[Silent Film]

Balancing Plasmids against game difficulty is important. It was a problem in IW. There the biomods made things too easy in a game that was already easy enough to start with.

I'm not actually all that interested in Plasmids to be honest, I'll probably use them lightly and I'll definitely attempt one playthrough Plasmid-free, if possible. One thing I would really like to see as a result is different reactions from NPC's depending on your state of transformation. It would be great if characters looked upon you differently if you remain pure human.

[king_clueless]

Balancing Plasmids against game difficulty is important. It was a problem in IW. There the biomods made things too easy in a game that was already easy enough to start with.

I'm not actually all that interested in Plasmids to be honest, I'll probably use them lightly and I'll definitely attempt one playthrough Plasmid-free, if possible. One thing I would really like to see as a result is different reactions from NPC's depending on your state of transformation. It would be great if characters looked upon you differently if you remain pure human.

those are some good thoughts there Silent Film. I'd never thought of playing the game plasmid free. Have you done something similar in Deus Ex by any chance? For me the appeal of games like this is the RPG elements but it'd be def worth trying it out if not the first time played through.

Really like the idea of NPC treating you differently basing on your transformation but would that be a lot to ask from the devs?

[Silent Film]

In games like this I like that we're given basic gameplay choices - stealth, action, diplomacy, etc, but I've never been too enthused by the nitty-gritty RPG elements. When faced with an obstacle I like to use more traditional solutions, it seems more real to me.

It was brought up in an interview a while back. Ken said he expected most players to use Plasmids and not doing so would make the game much more difficult, but the impression I got was that that possibility hadn't been given too much thought so I'm not actually expecting much in the way of consequences, other than making things more difficult for yourself.

[Hatesink]

In games like this I like that we're given basic gameplay choices - stealth, action, diplomacy, etc, but I've never been too enthused by the nitty-gritty RPG elements. When faced with an obstacle I like to use more traditional solutions, it seems more real to me.I've always felt it ironic that 'role-playing' games are the games that most effectively objectify the character (rather than actually letting us more fully identify with the character).

In terms of actually identifying with a character so as to play a role, in my opinion, Codename47 will always be one of the deepest experiences of actual role-playing (in the wider sense of the term), basically because it's a kind of a 'perfect storm'— using the detachment of the whole PC gameplay experience as a part of the player's overall experience of the character it portrays.

Edit: If you want to get overly technical, you could say it almost brings the character into the super-foreground (in the wider sense of the term (not the software jargon)) and in so doing quite effectively projects the player into the game (if the player spends enough time with the game to get into that 'envelope' so to speak (or maybe more accurately— if the player spends enough time with the game to let it 'position' them*)). Also— there's one part of Silent Assassin, where you can use a door in a certain way that causes a glitch which removes 47's head and body, so that all you have on screen are his arms, and this I would have liked as a selectable game feature, basically because of how immersive it is.

* In that respect I find it to be like a simulation. For example, like an ultra-realistic sports car driving simulation, where you can put your foot down and drive like it's Crazy Taxi but all that'll do until you learn the scope and frame of the exercise, is cause you difficulties.

[Alucard]

Since we first heard that Irrational Games would be releasing a new game with strong ties and influences from System Shock and System Shock II, I'm sure that like myself you've all been exuberant and those sentiments have continued to grow in regards to BioShock with each day that passes.

However, what if BioShock is not as truly dynamic as it is purported to be? What if all of the multitudes and combinations of gruesome, stealthy, clever, tactful, extravagant and powerful decisions you have to make turn out to not be as rewarding as we have all hoped! What if after a few injections and upgrades the game turns into a static quest to fight, hide and trick your way to yet more modifications that don't really quench your palette, your ravenous hunger for a game with more than just a few varied endings?

Can we trust the developers to work their hearts out for a game that will truly be groundbreaking or will we all be left heartbroken when they leave us with a game that simply converges the successful aspects of their previous games with more recent blockbuster titles such as Doom 3 and F.E.A.R?

Because Irrational Games is largely independent of industry moguls such as colossal media conglomerates such as Vivendi I still have hope; something we can all agree would be something to fear if it were shadowing over the BioShock project. Working underneath the Take-Two subsidiary 2K games we can imagine that every member working on the project is devoted and zealous to creating a terrifyingly revolutionary game with colossal impact on the gaming community and immense replay value (due to such a non-linear and diverse game-play style).

Don't let us down, we are all looking forward to what we know you can achieve!

I didn't realize a thread on this already existed so I'm reposting my worries and thoughts again here :P

[Club Heaven]

I don't know what the deal is with this so called revolution that Bioshock will bring in the FPS genre. The unscripted AI ? We heard tales like that before. And even when it worked, no one really felt it or cared. What else ? Plasmids ? They basically act like potions or boosters, so nothing new at all. Anything more ? I don't know. Seems to me we'll just walk around in a very cool setting, killing original types of enemies and experience a storyline deeper than your average shooter. Great ! But how does this revolutionize the genre :confused:

[Alucard]

That's exactly what I'm worried about. It seems like an interesting twist on the conventional shooter but there really hasn't been anything that I have seen or read that seems to me to be revolutionary.

However that doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to be just that.

I do believe that the game could be made more appealing if weapons and plasmids were perceived to do tremendous amounts of damage such as the weapons that Kratos wields in God of War games; they give off the impression of being extremely destructive and also have an astheticlly pleasing aspect to them while in reality they do minute damage.

In one of the trailers for the game your character injects himself with a plasmid and launches bees? at a guardian causing it to stumble around rendering it almost useless...if this is similar to how the interactions with the AI in the game is actually going to take place than I think that the game has great potential.

The only way that any of us will truly be able to know is after we have experienced it first hand. I guess we will just have to wait.

[Club Heaven]

Speaking of the bee-arm plasmid video, why the heck does that affect the Big Daddy ? He's completely sealed off, nothing can get inside that suit. Except maybe gas.
I hope that in the final version of the game different types of enemies will be immune to attacks that wouldn't affect them in real life.

[vrap]

Just before unleashing those wasps the guy shot a hole in the Big Daddy's helmet with a shotgun blast to the head, you can see the hole when he is closer, but we can't quite see what's inside ...

[Hatesink]

Speaking of the bee-arm plasmid video, why the heck does that affect the Big Daddy ? He's completely sealed off, nothing can get inside that suit. Except maybe gas.
I hope that in the final version of the game different types of enemies will be immune to attacks that wouldn't affect them in real life.That's a good point— he's supposed to be air-tight.

Just before unleashing those wasps the guy shot a hole in the Big Daddy's helmet with a shotgun blast to the head, you can see the hole when he is closer, but we can't quite see what's inside ...That is so cool...

...actually, hang on a minute, aren't they supposed to leak fluid when they're shot?

That's exactly what I'm worried about. It seems like an interesting twist on the conventional shooter but there really hasn't been anything that I have seen or read that seems to me to be revolutionary.I think they're basically setting a new baseline by including everything— basically all the USPs of all the other shooters out there (with the possible exception of SOF) and including more besides— basically raising the bar, since everyone else I imagine would have to catch up to keep their engine competitive (if that's how it works :confused:)

[Raveness]

Big Daddy's suit can be punctured, you see it occur in that video where one is standing over a screaming woman, and it looks like the BD is on fire. One of the dev's mentioned he was leaking his contained oxygen. Armor piercing rounds are required to puncture the suit's protection; that or anything damaging to strong metal's.

I don't think Bioshock will be "revolutionary" by any means, but rather have 'interesting twists on the conventional shooter' as you say. Marketing is just being their usuals selves when pushing the title using fanciful wordplay. I'm doubtful about seeing any emergent gameplay, advanced AI or game mechanics that weren't already done in SS2, this time having different window dressing & setting. I think we'll see a few new gimmicks that may or may not be adored by us fans.

I think people dwell too much on AI, and hope it will do things unexpected. Those unexpected actions of the AI usually get ragged on for ruining the future progress of the player character. Well, whadda ya know, decentralizing the player character may not be so interesting after all. What I do expect, and I alluded to it in my "modifying environment using available resources" thread, was that the AI enemies should work against the PC, possibly in tandem, using not only their physical traits and abilities, but also what Rapture's environment & systems have to offer in the way of thwarting the player's pleasant sojourn through it's halls.

[Hatesink]

I think people dwell too much on AI, and hope it will do things unexpected. Those unexpected actions of the AI usually get ragged on for ruining the future progress of the player character. Well, whadda ya know, decentralizing the player character may not be so interesting after all. What I do expect, and I alluded to it in my "modifying environment using available resources" thread, was that the AI enemies should work against the PC, possibly in tandem, using not only their physical traits and abilities, but also what Rapture's environment & systems have to offer in the way of thwarting the player's pleasant sojourn through it's halls.I guess if you're a better hacker than the splicers you can turn all manner of things on and off in order to open new routes and/or enable different types of gameplay.

I'm guessing you've not played any of the Hitman series, or SWAT4. The reason I say that is because I would have thought you'd be more into A.I. if you had (but each to their own I guess).

My favourite Hitman will always be the first one, but generally speaking the odd numbered Hitman titles are the best. I haven't played Blood Money yet.

[borgdrone89]

my biggest fear is that I buy the CE, the game flops, and my money is wasted; and then a friend from uni will laugh meniacally (spelling) at me as he promised he would if Bx flopped.
but i doubt that Bx will flop, the videos shown so far give me the fair idea that Bx will be fun.

EDIT: yay im a senior member from this post!!! yay!!!

[lotkrotan]

my biggest fear is that the world is gonna end before august :(

[Glottis]

Can you move dead bodies? Can you pick up the cigars from the store and smoke it with the cigar showing up in your hud? Can you be female?



My wife helene asked me that last night? I did not know how to answer her...


:o

Well... Ken ? Can you answer this q ? My wife is getting sick and tired of this inability to have a female avatar in pc games,she likes to play.She loved Vampire:Bloodlines,as did I.We have both played it fully,all the way through using at least 3 to 4 different clan types.There are allot of female gamers out there people.Beleive you me,I know a few,and have been married to two.

You would never peg my wife as a pc gamer,but she is.She is quite proud of her 'rig' and defrags and upgrades it once a year (Usually with my hand me downs,but still she plays games regularly) She has a 17th level mage in Oblivion,and a 9th levle acrobat/mage in Morrowind.

She asks me this q,every time a new and cool PC game,starts getting nearer to gold status. :cool:

[Raveness]

You can tell your wife Helene that I concur with those asessments on lack of female avatars, Bloodlines, pc-gamer, rig pride, and Elder Scrolls interest.

But from what we know, there won't be any reflective windows that will allow a first person view of the player character. If they stick with that, there should be no problem using your imagination and just ignoring the meaty male paws and the bass grunts and shrieks of pain.

If they don't, and put in mirrors or portray the character visually in 3rd person cinematics, they'd have to have a solid reason in the story for forcing a specific gender on us. I don't want to see another nameless SS2 male avatar that is essentially an empty shell that spoke one word, in slang.

[Club Heaven]

I can't imagine a woman pumping plasmids in her arm and creating makeshift weapons from garbage. I have nothing against female main characters, but in this case I'm sure it wouldn't fit.
Or they could change everything and put you in the role of a manly kickboxing chick from the 40s, on a holy mission to show these pansy scientists who really deserves to wear the pants in the house.

[nmrahde]

I can't imagine a woman pumping plasmids in her arm and creating makeshift weapons from garbage. I have nothing against female main characters, but in this case I'm sure it wouldn't fit.

Ellen Ripley? Princess Leia? Joan of freakin Arc? Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it wouldn't fit.

You could have different character models and just have multiple options for who it showed or the dialog relating to them ala Jade Empire (where there's a crier who shouts about your crimes and the description changes depending on who you picked)

[Club Heaven]

Ripley might be a good candidate, but she's still just a fictional character in a horror sci-fi movie. Me, I was thinking of real men and women. While a small percentage of males are capable of almost anything (real messed up things I mean), that number is considerably lower in the case of females. It's just the way we're built. You can see it all around you. I hope everyone understands where I'm coming from and not perceive this as sexist or whatever offends you.
And tell me honestly, how many women would stick a needle in their arm in order to give birth to a living bee hive ? That's one of the sickest things imaginable and I'm sure almost everyone would choose death over such an experience.
So, I'm saying that a male main character is a lot more appropriate in this setting, since men are generally more violent and have a greater endurance to stress. And you can hardly deny that. Or you can try if you wish, but I'm speaking from personal experience not just from what I've seen on the news. I have no reason to invent my opinions or any intention to make women feel inferior when it's really not the case.

[Raveness]

Club Heaven, those are extremely weak argument points to disclude women from the players role. Psychologically, men are not any more fit to deal with the moral dilemma that is presented in the game. Women also deal with much more unsettling forms of pain in their lives than men do, so pumping plasmid needles is a breeze. Diabetes calls for injecting yourself 3-4 times a day in the stomach, arm or ass, and women don't get a specific workaround for that.

Stress, violence, men may deal with those easier, in a sweeping generalized sense, but hardly should that be considered in the context of a game where the actions asked of the player would disturb even the most strong-willed men.

I fail to see where your argument has any merit other than pointing out you'd prefer a male role due to the misguided feeling that Rapture's variables would be handled easier by them. As I remember, splicer's are female, so I think the fairer sex has a chance to kick ass and take names within the context of Bioshock.

[Big_Daddy]

What could go wrong!? Nothing will go wrong! Never sound negative about the game that could possibly be the GOTY.

[Club Heaven]

Club Heaven, those are extremely weak argument points to disclude women from the players role.

No, they are just fine. It's you who are "extremely" touchy when it comes to male/female roles, like so many other women today. Somehow they all want to act and be acknowledged as men and can't stand to be faced with their natural barriers. We're not equal, we complement eachother and it won't do any good trying to ignore this fact. And before you unleash a wave of... observations on my narrowmindedness and my shortsighted view, please remember that I am not against women doing whatever they please, I'm just pointing out why I think a man would have a much greater chance of survival in and if an environment like Rapture was real. That's all. No other disrespectful, hidden message there.

And I never said that I'd be happy if there was no choice of a female main character in the game, I simply stated why I don't think it would fit very well in the given situation. I was thinking about what kind of a person would survive such an ordeal ? And I came to the conclusion that it would take one tough and crazy sob to do all the things we saw and read about. (big surprize)
It's actually a compliment that a woman wouldn't be capable of such sick acts. I know I wouldn't be up for the task and I'm sure you wouldn't either. But there's always the exceptions...

Psychologically, men are not any more fit to deal with the moral dilemma that is presented in the game.

But we were talking about physical and mental horrors here, moral dilemmas are for relaxation. And to give a more serious reply, yes, your gender plays no role when it comes to moral dilemmas.

Women also deal with much more unsettling forms of pain in their lives than men do, so pumping plasmid needles is a breeze. Diabetes calls for injecting yourself 3-4 times a day in the stomach, arm or ass, and women don't get a specific workaround for that.

I agree up to a point, but these things don't even come close to what would happen to you in Rapture. If you think it's the other way around, well then that's how you feel and I don't want to change your opinion.

Stress, violence, men may deal with those easier, in a sweeping generalized sense, but hardly should that be considered in the context of a game where the actions asked of the player would disturb even the most strong-willed men.

Again, I was imagining a real life scenario with real people in it. If we look at it simplified, then sure, it's just a game and anything goes. Fine by moi.

I fail to see where your argument has any merit other than pointing out you'd prefer a male role due to the misguided feeling that Rapture's variables would be handled easier by them. As I remember, splicer's are female, so I think the fairer sex has a chance to kick ass and take names within the context of Bioshock.

I'll stick to my "misguided" opinion till the end. If that place truly existed, no one would get out alive except for an impossibly strong, smart and determined guy. In other situations, women may best men without a blink of an eye. But I'm talking about this particular experience. And since it's a game where everything is possible, then by all means, let's give the fairer sex the chance to kick ass. If it's THAT important. Strangely, I don't remember myself feeling unhappy or uncomfortable when being forced to play as a female in other games. Never ever crossed my mind to complain about it. I wonder why ?

Now I fear this will turn into a pointless man vs woman debate which is the last thing I'm in the mood for right now. So, I ask you to trust me when I say that I don't look down upon women, I simply acknowledge their strong and weak points just like I acknowledge men's. And if anyone is really really convinced that I'm an *******, then you have my congratulations and a small advice: ignore me, I'm not worthy of your pretious time. ;)

[Hatesink]

And I never said that I'd be happy if there was no choice of a female main character in the game, I simply stated why I don't think it would fit very well in the given situation. I was thinking about what kind of a person would survive such an ordeal ?Surely Emilia Earhart could very easily have washed up at Rapture.

Note: because I didn't address a lot of the other comments you made, doesn't mean I condone them ;)

Edit: Forgot to mention. I'd very much like to play as a female. It's only very recently (probably one occasion in fact (Resident Evil Zero) where I played as the guy for about an hour (when I didn't have to)). Right from when I first played Ant Attack on the ZX Spectrum if given the option I've always chosen the girl...

If BioShock has that option (or better still, lets me morph) I'll be playing as a female.

[Nik]

my biggest fear is short gameplay and the game getting repetive quickly like doom3.

[Hatesink]

my biggest fear is short gameplay and the game getting repetive quickly like doom3.I'm hoping there's going to be enough variety to stop that happening.

[Hatesink]

Agreed. It's not like asking for the option to play as female if you can see yourself & there's no reason in the story to be either gender has anything to do with man vs. woman debate. It's a small favor in the end, possibly adding a little ounce of replayability value, and doesn't need to be overanalyzed into a survival questionability angle if the scenario was realistic.'Sex' honey-bunny. Gender is something different ;)

...but I agree with you. I always look to play a female.

[Raveness]

@ ClubHeaven: Like I've said before, I don't like games where the character's avatar is baselessly forced into a certain sex without merit. That hardly comes off as "touchy", as I'd be fine, and have been fine for many years, playing male roles that have actual characterization in them, even some without. I don't even want to know why you started to refer to "other women today"; this doesn't require the use of further generalizations to attack what you think of my personality. I discounted your points, not you. Don't take it so personally ;)

Simply stating stereotypes or generalizations doesn't convince me of an argument where a man should be interpreted to be superior in some sort of realistic situation, especially considering what we've witnessed Rapture has (genetic freaks, fantastical abilities, twisted immoral creations), which makes it not much of a stretch to think the player character may be extraordinary. In the context, I only see men doing better than women if you rely on a stereotypical rendition of each. Women are quite capable of sick acts, but only if you branch out of the stereotypical dainty ones.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree, as any such continuance would devolve into calling out misogyny or feminazism ;) You know I love you like a brother, don't want to strain that for something that I ultimately don't care about.

Edit: Forgot to mention. I'd very much like to play as a female. It's only very recently (probably one occasion in fact (Resident Evil Zero) where I played as the guy for about an hour (when I didn't have to)). Right from when I first played Ant Attack on the ZX Spectrum if given the option I've always chosen the girl...

If BioShock has that option (or better still, lets me morph) I'll be playing as a female.
Agreed. It's not like asking for the option to play as female if you can see yourself & there's no reason in the story to be either sex has anything to do with man vs. woman debate. It's a small favor in the end, possibly adding a little ounce of replayability value, and doesn't need to be overanalyzed into a survival questionability angle if the scenario was realistic.

[lotkrotan]

also @ Club Heaven. We have already seen in Bioshock videos that splicers can be male or female, and don't the splicers have to be genetically modified to be considered splicers? If you don't think female main characters can do that, how come female enemies can go through the pain of injecting a needle into themselves?

[nmrahde]

@Club Heaven - Keep in mind the main character is somebody that gets stuck in Rapture. It isn't a space marine or Rowdy Roddy Piper sent in to kick ass and chew bubble gum. So regardless of who you feel would be best suited to venture into Rapture, it doesn't matter all that much as it's just Joe or Jane Shmoe getting stuck there.

Which means Ripley is a good example to compare to since she didn't start all bad-ass either...

[Hatesink]

...it's just Joe or Jane Shmoe getting stuck there.lol

How about "Flo (http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=flo) Q. Public"

Or maybe that should be "Jo (http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=jo) Q. Public" ;)

Which means Ripley is a good example to compare to since she didn't start all bad-ass either...Dude— Ripley was born bad-ass ;)

[nmrahde]

How about "Flo (http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=flo) Q. Public"

Or maybe that should be "Jo (http://www.behindthename.com/php/search.php?nmd=n&terms=jo) Q. Public" ;)

That just makes me think Flo Jo Q. Public...

[angelo91]

what my fears are about this game is that it would be too short or too damn easy with all the plasmids available to you but then again everything is non scripted so anyhing can be waiting for you round the corner....i just hope this game doesnt suck or take the road of deus ex (the first one was great but the second one killed it all)

[Hatesink]

That just makes me think Flo Jo Q. Public...

Does 'Flo Jo' have a meaning? Is it something I should be aware of? (apologies if that sounds weird)

@angelo91— I'm imagining it should be pretty well-balanced. I'll I'm really asking of it is that it doesn't suck, so I'm pretty sure it's not going to disappoint me. ;)

[Pinky_Powers]

what my fears are about this game is that it would be too short or too damn easy with all the plasmids available to you but then again everything is non scripted so anyhing can be waiting for you round the corner....i just hope this game doesnt suck or take the road of deus ex (the first one was great but the second one killed it all)

The Plasmids are not Jedi Force Powers, using them does not make you super powerful like in KOTORII, wherein one third of the way through the game you are so strong that no one can so much as slow you down.

From what I have seen of BioShock, killing people with Plasmids will be just as difficult as going about it with a gun of some kind. And in fact, often times it looks like it may be harder.

These powers are more of a tool, and not a boundless secret weapon in whose wake lie the evidence of uninterrupted violence.

I think the game will be quite challenging.

[v.dog]

Does 'Flo Jo' have a meaning? Is it something I should be aware of? (apologies if that sounds weird)You've not heard of Flo Jo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Griffith_Joyner)? She was a great track and field athlete in the 80's, and her record for the 100m and 200m sprints still stand.

How old are you?

[Hatesink]

I'm 33, but I really don't know Flo Jo.

I guess that one got past me somehow. But as long as it's not something x-rated or totally politically incorrect I guess it's okay. Does it look weird? Should I edit it?

[nmrahde]

She was in the olympics in the 80s that what I remember.

Eh I now that I think about it I don't know the names of any foreign olympic athletics either...

[Hatesink]

I just Googled her. The multicoloured painted finger-nails seem to ring a bell.

[GuybrushThreepwood]

Although the trailers look great, after reading the latest IGN-interview (http://pc.ign.com/articles/784/784366p1.html) my biggest fear at the moment is this:

I hope they'll get the balance right concerning all the different game-elements, because it starts to feel like they put too much emphasis on the shooting and action alone and too little on the rpg and story elements (for my taste that is). I particularly loved the story and rpg element in System Shock and am not waiting for a Doom-like game with just better AI, graphics etc. and telling a little story along the way.

Because this is what I read: :eek:

"...perhaps more than anything else, these just aren't the same games. System Shock 2 was an FPS/RPG hybrid and it felt that way when you played it. BioShock is a deep shooter. It just feels different. We have designers and programmers just focusing on movement and aiming, getting the feel right."

[splicer]

My biggest fear is simple,that we may never get to actually play bioshock,theres a media frenzy again right now,the cynics and moralistic morons are ready to pounce,and Bioshock is perfect bait,some pretty mild stuff like RULE OF ROSE have come in for some serious flaming for its depiction of cruelty to children-that makes me very nervous as august gets closer.:( I hope I'm wrong.

[501105]

``My last playthrough, knowing the game in and out, and just trying to get to most of the rooms so i coulld find the perfect spot for various licensed music, was about 10 hours. My guess is a total noob playthrough is 12-20, with the high side a bit more``

that quote gets me dehyped somehow

[Jeff]

I beat Gun on the original x-box in a day, borrowed it from a friend who wasn't done with it yet and as such made me promise to bring it back the next day. So I marathon'd it and beat it 3 hours before having to return it to him, and yet I still consider Gun to be one of the best games on the xbox.

[Warmonger]

I fear Bioshock will never be able to hold up to the high expectations no matter what the circumstances. I played System Shock 2 when it first hit store shelves and it scared the hell out of me, the story consumed me and I couldn't put this game down, I was floored by the story and the experience. This wasn't just shooting, hacking and the like so easily written about in a preview column - I remember triggering the alarms on the Von Braun and being panicked by the noise alone.... panicked over a computer game, becoming engrossed in a gripping story overcomes lots of stuff to me? The Shock Engine was dated even when System Shock 2 was released, I'll credit the sound portion of the game engine - it was fantastic for the day, but the graphics were dated. Yes, too many designers have relied on eye candy recently to sell games and I can understand peoples concern about what Bioshock looks like - true. The persons responsible for creating SS2 should be rewarded for producing a game that had no breakout technology of any sort but is still holding up such a massive fan base several years after the fact, this speaks volumes about them. The creativity alone in SS2 made the game along with the story, the RPG/FPS elements were flawless when combined creatively by this group. I've been reading boards on ttlg.com for quite a few years hoping for a System Shock 3 (and without getting into the politics of the debate) only to accept that a SS3 will never come to light. I hope Bioshock is the vision of SS2 only with the development time and proper funding to finish the project correctly. Take 2 knows it has a huge fan base already, they haven't overlooked that and it's pretty much a given they will profit by this game. Everyone knows screwing this game up will destroy the fan base it has and all the investment into it as well. I can't imagine that will be the case coming from the original minds behind SS2 - I think this time they got a solid foundation to create a game from, with the help of every SS2 supporter raising hell over the years online too. I have waited at least 7 years to see anything come from SS2 (sequel or something?) I have high expectations because SS2 in my opinion was almost a perfect game? In order for Bioshock to raise the bar, what do they have to do? Or can they? I don't want the hype to overshadow what I'm sure will be a fantastic experience, I also expect if people play it without massive expectations both Bioshock and Rapture will only be the beginning of what this game will become with a much larger community to support it. It might sound like babble - but that's what I think...

[Soulsphere]

My biggest fear is probably that the AIs, other than the Big Daddy/Little Sister AIs, are going to be unimpressive.

[Fennerman]

I fear that I'll not be surprised cause I've read too much about it xD! I remember playing SS2 back in 2000 without knowing anything about it apart from a friend saying "you got to play this game". So in the game itself I discovered little by little how different it was from quake 2 and I was amazed by the story and so many other things... But now I feel like I know everything that this game is gonna "change", I've read about the weapons, the AI, the water, the story, etc... But that's my mistake... I hope I'll still enjoy it as I didn't know anything...
It's better to discover a game when you don't know a thing about it, if you ask me.

[LanciePants]

My worst fear is that to advance the game's story/plot I'm put on rails.

After reading developer posts and listening to the podcasts the way I understand it is, Bioshock is designed to present the player with moral/ethical choices. With each choice, the player is accosted by the ramifications of their decision. If after trumpeting these crises of conscience, the game requires me to make a predetermined moral choice I won't be happy. IE clubbing little sisters like baby seals for their special "AdamX" which is required to open the X door. Or the reverse by forcing me to leave the little sister/big daddies unmolested so the X door won't slam shut for good.

Don't sell me the line that Bioshock is all about choices only to make those choices for me.

[Cthulhu]

Lanciepants, it's a computer game.

Computer games can't be 100% freeform with no direction at all, otherwise you'd just be wandering about without a clue.

All the best freeform games have had a central plot, i.e. San Andreas, The Elder Scroll series, etc.

So you can't expect to have "absolute" freedom of choice in a video game, at least not until they start building Quantum supercomputers.

[Morovir]

A lot of folks consider Deus Ex to be the ultimate in RPG/FPS games. I have to agree, I have played through the game at least 5 times. I give myself enough time to forget most of it before playing again.

However, the game had one nagging problem - it was far too linear, and your choices didn't really have a substantial effect on the game until the last level. Sure, there were was the deal with Anna Navarre, Walter Simons, and Smuggler, but your choices boiled down to when to kill them (or in Smugglers case, whether to save him). The only real choice you had was in Area 51, and even then, only in the last level.

Don't get me wrong, I love that game. I still play it, even though the graphics are quickly becoming dated. The problem was that for a game that was supposedly "open-ended" you really didn't have a lot of choices over all. It would have been great if you had the option to not join the NSF when you run into Paul in Hell's Kitchen - and even turn him in, and instead wait until later to switch sides - if at all. You could go through the same levels, but as a UNATCO agent hunting the character you could have been instead. It would have made for a more satisfying game if you had multiple opportunities to ally with the NSF, rather than being forced at one point.

I was also deeply dissatisfied with the capture in Battery Park. While the visit to the MJ12 lab was a critical juncture in the game, I felt that could have been handled better. I guess I don't like being "forced" into a decision by the game.

Also, it would have been better if you could have gone back and forth between the major locations - instead of serially. Imagine flying to Paris to talk with one contact, then back to New York to follow-up, then to Hong Kong to actually do the deed, but at your own pace.

It was a lot like Half-Life (which I was ecstatic about) in that it gave you a lot of options in each area, and made you think about tactics, but in the end, you were riding a rail.

A better game, though EXTREMELY dated, was Ultima Underworld (The Stygian Abyss), and Ultima Underworld II (Labrynth of Worlds). They were first person, real-time, and completely open-ended long before this was common.

In those games, you could (in theory) go nearly anywhere in the game you were physically capable of surviving in from the get go. There weren't many artificial barriers, just your own abilities. The game often required you to revisit an area several times to talk with an NPC, or resupply.

Best of all, those games introduced the concept of multiple ways to solve a problem. For example, in the prison tower dimension in UWII, you could defeat 90% of the level without killing a single creature - if you looked around a bit, and talked to the right troll.

Unfortunately, UW was a true RPG, and there was a bit of "dungeon drudge" but the concepts could be applied to a shooter. A later game, Blade Runner, came out that was more or less an open-ended "shooter" that would be an even better model.

In that game, you actually had to investigate, look for clues, and make decisions about other characters. For those that played, did you shoot the clown outside the bar? (he wasn't a replicant BTW) Unfortunately, that game got mired down a bit too, but it was interesting because you had to think, and your actions during the entire game affected the outcome.

Ah, but that, perhaps, is the problem. most FPS games don't want you to think - they want you to shoot.

So, what I would *like* to see is a game with the user interface, and personal modification systems, of Deus Ex, but with the open ended game play of UW, and the idea that all your choices, not just a handful at the end, should contribute to the ending like Blade Runner.

[Morovir]

Lanciepants, it's a computer game.

Computer games can't be 100% freeform with no direction at all, otherwise you'd just be wandering about without a clue.

All the best freeform games have had a central plot, i.e. San Andreas, The Elder Scroll series, etc.

So you can't expect to have "absolute" freedom of choice in a video game, at least not until they start building Quantum supercomputers.

You can have 100% free form - it's called Second Life, which I think sucks.

However, within the constraints of an overarching plot, you can get pretty darn close. I'm replaying Morrowind (TES3) right now, and it is about as close to 100% free form as you can get. Of course, that is a pure RPG, not a FPS.

I believe it should be possible to make a FPS that doesn't feel like you are riding a rail like Half-Life and Deus Ex. Both were excellent games, and gave the player a tremendous amount of leeway - PER LEVEL.

There have been some games that were highly story driven but still non-linear enough to be satisfying. I hate to use this example, because the game sucked, but Myst is an example of where a story can be progressively told in a fairly non-linear way through exploration and discovery. In the case of BioShock, it would involve being able to go nearly everywhere, with the exception of the end-game areas, from the get go, and figuring out what happened (with the goal of figuring out what to do) by watching NPC's (scripted sequences), reading journals and logs (books), and even dialogue.

I'm hoping that, despite Deus Ex 2, the idea of blended RPG/FPS games will continue. I want to play an FPS that feels like an RPG, or vice-versa, and that is why I still replay Deus Ex despite its faults.

[v.dog]

One of my biggest fears is that the game is too open. While it's fun to explorer every nook and choose your own path through a level, getting lost and wandering around in circles for hours is not.

There should always be a sense of 'this is the way forward', whether you take that exact route or not.

[Soulsphere]

One of my biggest fears is that the game is too open. While it's fun to explorer every nook and choose your own path through a level, getting lost and wandering around in circles for hours is not.

There should always be a sense of 'this is the way forward', whether you take that exact route or not.

Well, the game area can't be overly big. I'm sure it won't be a problem like it might be in a game such as Fallout or Fallout 2, both of which are excellent games by the way. I usually think that the more open a game is, the better. However, I know what you mean. Some games are too vague about what needs to be done, forcing you to wander around in a bland world hoping to find what you're looking for.

On the other hand, I think Rapture will be fun to explore whether or not I know what I'm suppose to do.

[Number 01]

With no online this game has to be long or I won't buy it. Gears of War wasn't worth 60 bucks becuase the game was like 10 hours of gameplay, and it seemed like they cut the game in half knowing there was going to be a sequel. I really want 40+ like that other guy, and a game with less than 40 no matter how amazing the graphics isn't worth 60 bucks, unless it has an online multiplayer aspect.

[Morovir]

With no online this game has to be long or I won't buy it. Gears of War wasn't worth 60 bucks becuase the game was like 10 hours of gameplay, and it seemed like they cut the game in half knowing there was going to be a sequel. I really want 40+ like that other guy, and a game with less than 40 no matter how amazing the graphics isn't worth 60 bucks, unless it has an online multiplayer aspect.

10-20 hours would be fine, if there was replay value. I finished Half-Life in about 15-20 hours, but I went back and replayed some scenarios several times, trying different tactics, etc. Same with Deus Ex. First time through I snuck around most of the time. Second time, I still snuck - but went RAMBO in a few places. By the fifth time, I was able to walk through the place like I owned it. I think I played the Statue of Liberty level and the Submarine Base levels about 50 times each.

This is why I don't want a game that is highly linear. The replay value is proportional to the amount of control/leeway you have in the game. I can play Morrowind as long as I have a PC capable of running it because of the staggering freedom in the game. Everytime I start a new game, I end up with a slightly different character, take a vastly different path, etc.

On the other hand, if it feels like you just watched an interactive DVD, then I would feel pretty let down at 10-20 hours.