To Forge of Michael:
To Subjective Effect:
To Forge of Michael:
Well, be grateful you missed many of the first couple hundred threads in the BioShock General Discussion forum after it was released, then. The game was marketed to sell big, and a huge percentage of the players were pleased. The statistics don't give insight into all the thousands of players who were disappointed for many reasons, some very common reasons, and some individual. Quite a few of us here will never be happy with a game made to sell big, because it means something great will be compromised for those that don't care, or don't see, but are willing to shell out the dough for more flash and bang and death with a twist.
Last edited by jtr7; 5th Apr 2008 at 06:12. Reason: Increased accuracy.
To Forge of Michael:
Mark my words, Digi you're talking from your arse.
TDS and IW were completely limited by engine development and level size restraints. That alone would have made the games vastly different. Also, the trend to dumb everything down is starting to see its backlash (from a publisher perspective) right now.
(Oh, and you'll see that people complained about Bioshock sucking as a game, not as a *shock title)
The game is a complete mess, not just because it's not SS2 enough. Please read some threads in the Bioshock forum.
The setting, the sounds and music. About the only things BS did right.
So what you're saying is, you don't care what the game is, if it's too commercialized, you won't buy it?
I didn't say that, no. You were too quick to go there.
I won't buy a game that's more of the same disguised as something else. I won't buy a game to keep up with popular trends. I won't buy a game until I learn more about it from gamers, and especially gamers I respect whose opinions I trust because I tend to agree with their assessment.
I AM a niche market, Thief (my fave) IS a niche market, there's no effort or going out of my way at all. Thief came along by happy chance, and I was in place to play it, and I was hooked, and it sold decently enough overall, but it's pretty much a cult favorite. I haven't played SS, SS2, or BS. And I'm not really a gamer. But I think my points are relevant to this debate.It seems to me that you're going out of your way to form a niche market for yourself.
It should seem like a natural growth, and core concepts that are well-liked should never be compromised if the game company is going to use the known title and say it IS the same formula.Apparently, these people always want a game to be identical or very similar to a formula that has been proven to work in the past. People seem to be scared of a change to that system.
I will say this emphatically, speaking for myself: I like change that means positive growth. I like change that makes sense, such as an increase in technological capability. I like change that isn't built around a gimmick. I like change that isn't smoke and mirrors. Don't be so quick to lump anybody into that despised category. It's a cheap shot.
Again, this use of mass-market statistics is NO measure of personal satisfaction across the various demographics, and certainly not how we fit in there. Not only that, but do those numbers account for those that bought it for someone else? Bought more than one copy? Sold copies on ebay or in the classifieds without ever playing it? The point being that there are a multitude of factors, including different personalities, tastes, expectations, and levels of satisfaction. What we're speaking from is the shared community experience--people talking about the games with each other--not sales figures.I'd understand if the game had failed, but BioShock didn't. What did you expect?
What was expected was what the gaming community was TOLD to expect. Apparently it was inaccurate. Now pay attention here, this is critical: There are many who love the game but hate the problems they've listed, hate feeling lied to, hate the fact that they can't trust the gaming companies' marketing campaigns, hate the apparent fact that the game designers missed the point of why they liked some things in the earlier games. Connecting a new game to an earlier beloved title creates expectation. That expectation was not met for many gamers. Severing that connection and just seeing the game for what it is, and nothing more, removes the distortion that comes from that romanticised expectation. The game can be loved by those who hate that distortion.
Complaining is a way of trying to correct, rebuke, or punish the entities that share a major part of the blame for creating a false expectation to boost sales. Complaining is also an attempt to get the companies to change how they'll make the next game for the better--it is hoped. You will find that anybody praising a game will usually have a short list, while those who are disappointed will have pages of detailed explanations so anyone reading it might better understand why those things are unwanted. It's usually not the evil it's made out to be. If no one complained, some negative things would never be changed for the better, and positive change is welcome.
Last edited by jtr7; 5th Apr 2008 at 07:32.
Don't you think that if BioShock had not been touted as a "successor" to anything, had no connection to any other old franchises, and was without the "Shock" suffix, it would have been more appreciated across the board?
Looks to me like it was painted in a paint program.
It's definitely a concept art. A photo or a 3D scene might have been used as a base for the picture.
I just remembered another thing which pissed people off even more when BS came out: the 2K forums were censoring people, deleting posts, and banning people. Now, many of those posts and posters were extreme and mean, but some were merely negative. The censorship alone, no matter the justification, was enough to damage consumer trust among many of those who were aware of it. Most people who purchased the game never went to the forums or registered or hung out, so those customers missed the strongest of the ugliness.
I said nothing of the kind. I let him have his say and didn't apply what he said to my comments at all. In fact, I'd say he was just pushing buttons, even if he believes what he said whole-heartedly....you're being a little extreme when you and HellSing say that there's nothing to like with BioShock.
Then they should just make a new game, and leave the old games out of it, eh? It should be so simple. Take the things they like from previous games, whip up an original recipe that incorporates those things, and mass-market it all they want. No quarrels from me....nothing should be changed, demanding this and that. Sometimes developers have to think about what will sell games, as opposed to what will please a small demographic of long-time fans.
As I said, the expectations were created, for the most part, by the company's marketing. The expectations were crafted to get people drooling, to boost sales. I remember my first reaction to the first video I saw. I thought it was pretty cool, impressive, worth my attention. Eventually I found out it was FPS frenzy...again...and all the good stuff I'd enjoy would only come in-between. Not my cup of tea. The "making of" videos are my favorite part at this time....I don't see why so many are so quick to put it down, just because it wasn't precisely what they expected.
Maybe. But then, I'm also considering that if nothing but the name and the marketing which connected it to SS2 were changed, and the game had come out without anybody knowing what inspired it, how would SS2 fans have reacted when things seemed familiar? Would they have been crying "rip-off!", or would they have thought "Haha! Ken Levine found a way to bring an SS2-ish game into the new millennium!" I don't know. I could easily say that it probably would've been more appreciated across more demographics, but I believe that would be inaccurate.Don't you think that if BioShock had not been touted as a "successor" to anything, had no connection to any other old franchises, and was without the "Shock" suffix, it would have been more appreciated across the board?
Where did I say there's nothing to loke about Bioshock? I only said the game was a mess. I like the setting, I like the sound (not the sound propagation, mind you), I like the music. But that's it.
AI was nonexistent
graphics were plastic
gameplay was boring and repetitive
movement was clunky
weapons lacked oomph
enemies were uninteresting
tension - what tension with vita chambers?
story was full of plot holes
Except You Are Empty, every other fps I played this or last year was better than Bioshock, and I've played a few.
Hey, I speak french (my nick here is Gambit because not only because Iīm sexy but because I can say "Voulez vous coucher avec moi ce soir ?"). So in case anyone need a translation for something in Montreal I can help.
But their site has an english version anyway, itīs located at the top right part of their page.
"Eidos-Montréal is proud to announce the recruitment for our 2nd “AAA” project.
… A hint! The title begins with the letter “ T ”…"
AAA That surely means itīs important.
And Iīm with jr7 on this one: Letīs not start a negativity tidal wave before itīs even confirmed if itīs Thief 4 or not.
Games are not being dumbed down forever, weīre just looking at the generic FPS genre boom. The same genre where Portal managed to be fresh, interesting and sell.
Is there an EIDOS Montreal forum?
I believe The Magpie was suggesting someone watch the boards (and I'll add "sites") most likely to have the earliest news until it gets big enough for a real press release.
Well, Portal wasn't build from ground up as a cash cow for Eidos, it also had a very dedicated design team for years. When it was known as Narbacular Drop and afterwards as well. Virtually unlimited design time plus the most independent and well-off publisher and financier in the market, Valve... Compare that to what kind of environment Thief 4 is being developed(and don't fool yourselves, they really are resurrecting the franchise) and I wouldn't hold my horses for blazing creativity.
Well, I'm actually fine with getting to revisit the world and perhaps finally play as a Garrett(or some other Thief) who can circumvent the world through acrobatics, climbing etc, instead of the octogenarian monkey who had trouble vaulting on crates.
Also, Portal was dumbed down compared to Narbacular Drop - in ND you cod create portals through portals.
I think they didnīt include the "Portal throught portals" because they had trouble with the code or the engine.
Not because they thought...
"Well here we have a PUZZLE game but if we can shoot portals throught portals just like our acclaimed previous game then it will need too much THINKING from the players, we canīt let this happen ! Letīs dumb it down !"
If it gets all twitch and precision and cannot be played at a leisurely and thoughtful pace as well as fast, I won't enjoy it or get very far. If it adds fancy moves and cannot be played without them, I'm out. Increased maneuverability is very desired, but gymnastics and parkour as necessary tools to solve the game are not. Give us the freedoms we were promised in TDS. Add motion-capture to the improved AI. Give us quadrupeds already! Give us scary enemies that rival our preconceived notions of what the Enforcers were going to be, before we found out they were lame. Do something radical and risky for the good cause of being different and cool, and because it will get stolen by other game companies for being ground-breaking. Don't turn the sneaker into a shooter. Make head-bob a slider-adjusted option. Give us true wide-screen. Don't make it modern day earth as we know it. Don't make the player character a thug or a gangster or a car-jacker. Bring back the sewers 'cause real cities and old Thief had sewers. Give us crime lords, hitmen, petty thieves, a corrupt mayor, street cops, industrial religious fanatics encouraging urban sprawl, religious fanatic farmers fighting for their shrinking land, and a shadowy group of immensely powerful people that influence the people of lesser power in charge.
Don't the Tomb Raider games usually come with level editors? That could be the one bright moment in this whole affair.
I agree with jtr7 - Bioshock shouldn't have been marketed as a System Shock legacy. This kind of marketing barely works on newcomers and only makes veterans angry in the end. One thing I know for sure is that even though I did enjoy some aspects of Bioshock, I couldn't help thinking "SS2 was better" all the time.
But there is something else wrong with this game. I undestood this when I noted I didn't mind the respawn. I hated respawn in SS2 because it made me feel unsafe. I was constantly afraid something was sneaking up on me. There was no such feeling in Bioshock. Everything always felt under control, even though the enviroment is partially dynamic (for instance, enemies can destroy player's turrets and place their own), and enemies respawn more often than they did in in SS2.
There are moments when authors try to scare the player on purpose with things like lights suddenly going out or enemies talking to you from hiding. But it always feels like a cheap trick. Bioshock fails to build the mood, and this has nothing to do with vita chambers. There are similar devices in SS2; player needs to turn them on first, but that' s a token challenge, because they are easy to find and never guarded. Actually, I imposed on myself a challenge not to use vita chambers at all (just like I never used those quantum gizmos from SS2), and it didn't help.
I know it's a very vague accusation, but it's a biggie to me: the game has all the ingredients needed to be very good, but it just doesn't feel right. Everything seems stylized, rather than stylish. NPCs behave as if they were on stage in theatre. The main plot device (Atlas' identity) is very transparent, and I'm really tired of the "treacherous mentor" cliche. Vending machines simply play on my nerves (if I never have to hear "welcome to the circus of value, aahhahahaha" again, it will be too soon). I wouldn't call enemies "uninteresting", but I had a hard time telling one from another. I never really determined what their motives were. Are they mindless mutants, insane, mind controlled or maybe they just don't like strangers? Should I treat them like people or monsters? But I didn't have a moral dilemma with this. I just couldn't determine the authors' agenda.
The mechanic seems good enough. Yes, the AI is poor. Sometimes it looks like these are just UT3 bots with different 3D models. But I enjoyed Big Daddies a lot, especially hiding from Rosies and avoiding being trampled by Bouncers. The game convinced me when I discovered the combination of tonics that turned the hero into a Garrett-like sneaker. The wrench was my primary weapon during most of the second half of game. Honestly, the only weapon that I really didn't like was the chemical thrower. I've found uses for all the rest, and it was the first game in many years to feature a shotgun that was worth my attention.
The Letter T
TimeSplitters series has moved to EA
Tomb Raider: Underworld is being developed by Crystal Dynamics
When I hear "revive successful franchises" I think the world Successful - did anyone check Terracide at Wikipedia ? It is just a stub with a link to Mobygames ! What a freaking successful game has only a stub page on wiki with no devoted fan-club ?
And finally, the last straw...
The T from Thief as the Montreal directorīs avatar. That is not teasing, that is crying out loud THIEF 4.
Iīm becoming convinced itīs for real this time.
No love for Touch the Dead?