Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Unless the graphics are much better than the beta version, Gears' graphics are much better.
The beta's graphics were taken terrible hits just to be able to make the multiplayer itself smooth. The graphics on the end game are vastly superior to the beta. The graphics had to suffer for the sake of multiplayer at that time.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Have you actually played either? As I said previously:"Bioshock doesn't just rely on guns, the odd car or bike, or a shield that do nothing for the ACTUAL gameplay. It has active power ups that alter your dna and give you powers that aren't only used for combat, but hacking, healing, intelligence, endurance etc. You drink too much wine (Health), you get drunk and can't function properly for a while. These things have either never been in any game, or they're not in any game being used in this way.
Halo 3? New gun, new shield, bike, maps. So what? That's not bringing anything new to the gaming world, it's just another installment, just another FPS.".
In addition, the choices you make not only alter the ending, but your ability to play through it. You gain things by making certain choices that you don't get by making others etc.
As for Gears, name me another game like it, right now or in recent memory with such dynamic, involving gameplay, and RELEVANT online co-operative modes.
-AC
I own both, actually, and I think they're both excellent games, though not necessarily innovative.
Powers that alter gameplay? I've played Psi-Ops already.
Getting drunk? Innovative? Please; you're grasping there. As for alternate endings, I'm sure you know they've been in a number of other games. Advantages and disadvantages depending upon your choices have been in games a while now; Fable comes to mind, along with KOTOR I and II.
Dynamic, involving gameplay is based upon opinion. Online co-op? I can think of System Shock II (while we're on the topic of Bioshock) and Doom off the top of my head.
I just want to address what everyone is saying about how the fans will be pissed if they try and change something.
The number of serious hardcore Halo fans who would actually think that way is probably much smaller than you'd think. And honestly, catering to the hardcore crowd is always a mistake. Change isn't always bad, contrary to what some may think.
Originally posted by HonkyTonkMan
You're suggesting new things, but what exactly can they bring other than weapons, levesl and vehicles? Make Master Chief have psychic abilities, how crap would that make him.
I'm not suggesting new things, what part of that do you not grasp? I'm saying that there is much more you can do with a FPS other than what's done in Halo, why? Because Halo really doesn't do much beyond what a FPS SHOULD do, but if people just keep believing Halo is the peak, then companies won't have the need to push further, they can just make Halo 8.
Originally posted by H.S.6
I own both, actually, and I think they're both excellent games, though not necessarily innovative.
You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. It's quite a fact that Bioshock adheres to the definitions for the word "Innovative". Whether or not you agree is of no nevermind to me.
Originally posted by H.S.6
Powers that alter gameplay? I've played Psi-Ops already.
I didn't say that was the sole reason it was innovative, way to be selective in what you read. Furthermore, innovation doesn't necessarily mean creating something new AS I SAID, it can also mean using an existing idea in ways never seen. Bioshock does all this.
Originally posted by H.S.6
Getting drunk? Innovative? Please; you're grasping there.
How am I? It happens, it alters the way your character handles, it makes you vulnerable to enemies, it's harder to see where you're going. You wanna tell me what other games have this, or do you wanna keep salivating over a quad bike?
Originally posted by H.S.6
As for alternate endings, I'm sure you know they've been in a number of other games. Advantages and disadvantages depending upon your choices have been in games a while now; Fable comes to mind, along with KOTOR I and II.
You're not seeing the point. That in and of itself is not what I was pulling out as innovative. If you have the game you'll know that it's not restricted to weaponry and power ups, the two are combined all the time, woven into each other and left up to the player to determine which is best used in every situation. That is not something you get in FPS games.
Other games that pride themselves on it? Yes, but not FPS. Bioshock is doing many, many things not seen in a FPS or any game.
Originally posted by H.S.6
Dynamic, involving gameplay is based upon opinion. Online co-op? I can think of System Shock II (while we're on the topic of Bioshock) and Doom off the top of my head.
Doom's online co-op was nothing like Gears' online-co op and you know it, neither was System Shock 2's. So I'll ask you again, name me a game that has come out in recent memory or ever, that is like Gears of War, right down to the combat system, which is dynamic outside of opinion.
Originally posted by Shin_Blax
So if Master Chief starting shooting magic out of his ass and using a wrench to beat up Covenant the majority of people wouldn't complain?
You're only proving my point.
-AC
What has Bioshock done in terms of gameplay that hasnt been done before?
To answer your question about naming a game that is like Gears of War would be Kill Switch, which CliffyB has stated that was an primary influence to Gears Of War.
Online co-op, I'll give you that Gears Of War made it popular but singleplayer co-op isnt new. I remember playing Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark Zero which had singleplayer co-op, just not online.
Originally posted by Smasandian
What has Bioshock done in terms of gameplay that hasnt been done before?To answer your question about naming a game that is like Gears of War would be Kill Switch, which CliffyB has stated that was an primary influence to Gears Of War.
Online co-op, I'll give you that Gears Of War made it popular but singleplayer co-op isnt new. I remember playing Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark Zero which had singleplayer co-op, just not online.
I swear half the people here have either not played the game, or don't actually know how innovative it really is.
Name me another FPS with plasmids or such varying degrees of massive character manipulation, character alteration and dynamics etc.
Bioshock is not only a crazily innovative game, but it's undeniably the most innovative FPS right now. I'm not denying there are elements that have been POSSIBLY done in other games SOMEHOW, but it has a tone of things never done before, and on top of that, never done in an FPS, which is my point.
Within the FPS genre, it's ahead of everything else.
As for Gears, well done. You named A game. Gears is quite clearly in its own league.
Originally posted by shin_gear
Halo 2 is one of the greatest FPS games.
In your opinion, and from what I've seen, for ridiculous reasons.
I could name more than five better, in my opinion.
-AC
So you've played Dues Ex and System Shock 2 right?
If not all of Bioshock gameplay has been done before in those games.
Character manipulation? Check. So they dont call it plasmids, or changes the DNA of the character but its still the same thing. You change your nano augmentations to allow to do things that nonbody in the game world can do. Weapon modification is also in that game. I actually think that Dues Ex system is better than Bioshock's.
Deus Ex also does the whole drink beer, or wine and your characters gets drunk. I'm also pretty sure if you smoke, your character loses health but gains power. Also Dues Ex, during certain story moments, whatever path you choose, what you do later affects what you do later.
The more I think about it, the more I see Bioshock being the next gen version of Dues Ex. The difference is that its better in graphics, sound and the gunplay is better and the story, but overall, the game is similiar to Dues Ex.
AC, you are obviously somewhat retarded. Can you just pull your head out of you ass for 4 seconds and stop bitching about halo and how bioshock is so innovative because its not. I just bought the game about 7 hours ago so obviously I think its great BUT plasmids are nothing new, they're simply another name for spells or mana like in oblivion. The creators just wanted a different explanation as to why your shooting fire or electricity out of your butt. Honestly can you stop bashing Halo for 2 minutes and just think about what you're saying. I already proved you wrong about all of your idiotic points. Yes I admitted that Halo was not innovative (for the 3rd freakin time) but I did say that it perfected the formula for first person shooters. Let me just restate some of my points. Huge open environments lead to an awesome gaming experience. Yes, the vehicles make it fun to drive around in these awesome areas and no its not boring because theres always enemies around or something to do. The Story actually is very creative... if you can't admit that then you're obviously slow so stop arguing about it. Having an artificailly created ring world by an ancient race that contains a virus that survives by eating anything living and holds the key to destroying the galaxy isn't exactly your everyday first person shooter plot. Oh and by the way you obviously either didn't play the beta or didn't watch that video link because the graphics were 10 times better.
And for god sakes think about it... if all of the sudden the Master Chief started using a cover system like a third person shooter or shoot shit out of his ass as a secondary weapon then the game would be ruined. I really don't understand how you think the developers should somehow make some completely new innovative gameplay in an already GREAT game. If you were a game developer and had a great game with a large fanbase and said "hey lets go make this amazing change that will completely alter the gameplay experience from the previous two titles" WOULD YOU DO IT????
Jesus Christ you have literally just taken a gigantic steaming shit on the chest of logic itself. Congratulations and have a nice night.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Character manipulation? Check. So they dont call it plasmids, or changes the DNA of the character but its still the same thing. You change your nano augmentations to allow to do things that nonbody in the game world can do. Weapon modification is also in that game. I actually think that Dues Ex system is better than Bioshock's.
Deus Ex had lots of innovative ideas and features for the time, which is what it's about, but the game was as enjoyable (In my opinion) as watching paint dry. You can do everything in Deux Ex in Bioshock and more. All Deux Ex really had was the odd realistic moment of drunkeness and smoking, but beyond that, it didn't really combine the two, it was mostly for novelty, as seen in the sequel. It was too concerned with being known for innovation when it really didn't do that much, looking back. Not when you consider Half-Life.
Innovation doesn't just mean creating, as said, it means altering already existing ideas and applying them in very new ways, which Bioshock does. Spiritual successor to System Shock 2 or not, the games are worlds apart.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Deus Ex also does the whole drink beer, or wine and your characters gets drunk. I'm also pretty sure if you smoke, your character loses health but gains power. Also Dues Ex, during certain story moments, whatever path you choose, what you do later affects what you do later.
But they're choices for the sake of it, they do not run as deep as the ones you have to make in Bioshock. You vastly make it easier or harder on yourself depending on how you fight, what you equip, who you save, who you don't save etc.
Originally posted by Smasandian
The more I think about it, the more I see Bioshock being the next gen version of Dues Ex. The difference is that its better in graphics, sound and the gunplay is better and the story, but overall, the game is similiar to Dues Ex.
So it's better in every way, totally different, but similar? Can't entirely say I follow.
Originally posted by Spartan005
AC, you are obviously somewhat retarded. Can you just pull your head out of you ass for 4 seconds and stop bitching about halo and how bioshock is so innovative because its not.
And here we see the Halo Defense in it's true form. Translated as; Wah.
Originally posted by Spartan005
I just bought the game about 7 hours ago so obviously I think its great BUT plasmids are nothing new, they're simply another name for spells or mana like in oblivion.
We're discussing FPS are we not? Never has anything like that been in any other game to the extent that it's in Bioshock, or at all, quite possibly. Never as well executed or integrated, that's for sure.
In RPGs which are known for that stuff, sure, but even then you make a remarkably desperate leap to connect the two.
Originally posted by Spartan005
The creators just wanted a different explanation as to why your shooting fire or electricity out of your butt. Honestly can you stop bashing Halo for 2 minutes and just think about what you're saying. I already proved you wrong about all of your idiotic points.
You've proven nothing other than you like the game, will insult people for it, and hold the faulty argument that voice acting, written story and music play a part in how well the game plays. That's all you've proven, it's a basic FPS, dynamically, technically.
Originally posted by Spartan005
Yes I admitted that Halo was not innovative (for the 3rd freakin time) but I did say that it perfected the formula for first person shooters. Let me just restate some of my points. Huge open environments lead to an awesome gaming experience. Yes, the vehicles make it fun to drive around in these awesome areas and no its not boring because theres always enemies around or something to do. The Story actually is very creative... if you can't admit that then you're obviously slow so stop arguing about it. Having an artificailly created ring world by an ancient race that contains a virus that survives by eating anything living and holds the key to destroying the galaxy isn't exactly your everyday first person shooter plot. Oh and by the way you obviously either didn't play the beta or didn't watch that video link because the graphics were 10 times better.
And here comes the predicted masturbatory fanboy blast mixed with fury that someone is proving their argument wrong.
You can keep repeating your points and convince yourself I'm not listening, and I'll keep telling you that having huge environments that you walk about in, doing the same stuff you do in the smaller environments (They are only there for show, don't ever get it twisted), does not make the gameplay dynamic good. You don't find it boring because there's always enemies to kill, great. It's still repetitive, and nothing you've mentioned adds to the gameplay. It's still a basic FPS, your own points prove this.
Then you move on to the stamp-my-foot-like-a-kid point of; "Well if you don't agree that the story is creative then you're dumb." argument. Everything you just described about the plot still revolves around alien forces vs Earth forces, "Who can save us?! Maybe that soldier-looking fellow! He looks like a hero! He's our last hope!". Yes, very "creative", for the billionth time its been done.
I played the beta, I watched the video. They can't hold a candle to Gears of War's graphics.
Originally posted by Spartan005
And for god sakes think about it... if all of the sudden the Master Chief started using a cover system like a third person shooter or shoot shit out of his ass as a secondary weapon then the game would be ruined. I really don't understand how you think the developers should somehow make some completely new innovative gameplay in an already GREAT game. If you were a game developer and had a great game with a large fanbase and said "hey lets go make this amazing change that will completely alter the gameplay experience from the previous two titles" WOULD YOU DO IT????
Why keep repeating it? I do already know that Halo fans have the FPS adaptability of Paris Hilton, you don't need to keep giving me ammo.
YOU think it's great, that's your opinion. I think it's boring and overrated, that's my opinion. What isn't opinion is that it's pretty basic as a FPS, and I'm not suggesting they do more with the series, never have. In fact, I'm proving that they don't need to, because fans are too sucked into the fact that it's basic to the point that it's easy. That's fine, but then stop overrating it, stop putting it above games that factually push more boundaries simply because you like it.
Originally posted by Spartan005
Jesus Christ you have literally just taken a gigantic steaming shit on the chest of logic itself. Congratulations and have a nice night.
Yeah, I felt the stab of sense while reading your post too.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Deus Ex had lots of innovative ideas and features for the time, which is what it's about, but the game was as enjoyable (In my opinion) as watching paint dry. You can do everything in Deux Ex in Bioshock and more. All Deux Ex really had was the odd realistic moment of drunkeness and smoking, but beyond that, it didn't really combine the two, it was mostly for novelty, as seen in the sequel. It was too concerned with being known for innovation when it really didn't do that much, looking back. Not when you consider Half-Life.Innovation doesn't just mean creating, as said, it means altering already existing ideas and applying them in very new ways, which Bioshock does. Spiritual successor to System Shock 2 or not, the games are worlds apart.
But they're choices for the sake of it, they do not run as deep as the ones you have to make in Bioshock. You vastly make it easier or harder on yourself depending on how you fight, what you equip, who you save, who you don't save etc.
So it's better in every way, totally different, but similar? Can't entirely say I follow.
-AC
I have no doubt that Bioshock is better than System Shock 2, or Dues Ex, but it should be better. It had years to take in all the gameplay those games did and make it better. I dont consider that innovation. I just consider that being the norm. Every game that has ideas influenced by older games should be better. How is that innovating?
So, in that sense, a game like Half Life which turned FPS genre on its head, now, whenever a game that takes Half Life idea of showing the story is innovating because they created it better than Half Life. No, I dont think so.
What's the difference between Dues Ex drinking beer to gain health and Bioshocks drinking beer to gain health and both distorting the view of the player for a short amount of time? Both happen the exact same way.
The choices you make are exactly the same as the choices you make in Bioshock. The three major choices you make are choosing to harvest, or not to harvest Little Sisters, which reflect on how much ADAM you get, but in the grand scheme of things, doesnt really make an huge amount of difference because when I finished the game, I got all the upgrades, plasmids and tonics I could possibly get. The other choices are choosing what tonics and plasmids to get. But again in Dues Ex, you do the exact same thing. You choose what nano aug you want and the directly affects on how you play the game. I'll go even farther and say that Bioshock is more linear than Deus Ex.