Warning: If you don’t want to read spoilers, don’t read this post!
I finished Bioshock this evening. I don’t finish too many games but this this one was pretty short overall. I’m not sure how long it took but it couldn’t have been more than 12 hours, which is fine with me. Took me 2 weeks to get those 12 hours in as it was.
The day I got the game, I wrote a very excited post about how much I was looking forward to playing through it after having logged a couple hours of play time. Unfortunately, my interest in the game declined pretty much linearly from that moment on. I simply do not understand why this game has been reviewed so well unless the reviewers only played the first hour or two of the game.
The pluses:
- A pretty game. Very, very nicely-done art in an attractive art deco-ish style. Not too many games use art deco, so that was refreshing. In fact, I think it was one of the things that initially suckered me into believing this was anything but a standard FPS wrapped in a huge hype ribbon.
- The writing was not offensively bad. That’s a big step up over most games (probably including my own). Compared to most games the writing was excellent, in fact, but that’s not a very high bar to leap over.
- Bug-free. Though I can’t speak for anyone else’s experience, mine was mercifully 100% free of bugs…just like all console games should be. Patching console games is lame. Still, this is the single 360 game I’ve played thus far for any length of time in which I didn’t notice any bugs.
- The first 2 minutes. Possibly the best opening I’ve ever seen in any video game in any format.
The minuses:
- The hype machine. I came into this with huge expectations. There was going to be this great storyline. There were going to be innovative gameplay mechanics. There were going to be real moral choices to make. All hype. I mean, don’t get me wrong, this is still a great game. It’s just not an awesome one, to my taste.
- The story. I don’t tend to enjoy first person shooters, and pretty much the only way I’ll typically play one is if it allows for co-op play. Bioshock was pitched as having this engrossing story that shows games are art, blah blah blah, but if that’s art then pardon me, but big fucking deal. I mean the climax of the game is an absolutely standard battle against this larger-than-life guy who can throw fire, ice, and electricity. Call him a wizard or a super-villain and there are probably well over a 1000 games that culminated in essentially exactly this way. Big let-down.The other big letdown is that the story is almost entirely communicated to you by listening to tape recorders. Very little of what you actually do has any bearing whatsoever on the story. What you spend 99% of the game doing is shooting what amount to zombies, some of which throw fireballs, some of which leap at you, but all of which look more or less the same.
- The gameplay. In your right hand you wield a weapon (various types of guns/projectile weapons) to attack things with. It has limited ammo, aside from the basic melee weapon (a wrench). In your left hand you wield ‘plasmids’ which are flat-out D&D-type spells. Fireball, lightning bolt, etc etc. Then, you walk around shooting things. That is the extent of the gameplay barring a minigame that is used for everything from opening safes to disabling attacking security bots to hacking into security cameras. By the end of the game I truly loathed that stupid minigame, which feels very awkwardly stuffed into the game to me. The most valuable thing in the game for me ended up being auto-hacking tools since they allowed me to mainly avoid the minigame.
- The supposed moral choices. There was exactly one really meaningful choice to make in Bioshock, though you repeated that choice multiple times (perhaps 15 in all?). The choice is between killing these freakish little girls and getting X of a resource called ‘Adam’ (used to buy new spells or “plasmids” if you prefer) or not killing them and only getting X/2 of the resources. Of course, in the latter case you’re compensated after every 3 girls you rescue with gifts that more or less make up for what you lost. So in fact, the moral choice doesn’t even have any meaningful consequences for you, which makes it a trivial choice at best.
- The “social commentary.” Sorry, but criticizing objectivism (Ayn Rand’s economic/moral psuedo-philosophy) is like criticizing Scientology. Satire, not criticism, is where it’s at for ideas that are just patently not worth taking seriously. Bioshock took itself very seriously and I occasionally got the impression that the developers felt they were really making a philosophical statement by incorporating some of the basics of Rand’s “philosophy” into the ostensible bad guy.
I suspect that had I rented this rather than bought it (definitely does not pass my ‘buy’ test in retrospect) and had I not been seeing ratings like 9.9 out of 10 and 5/5, and had I not read all sorts of people putting forth the notion that Bioshock is a credible comeback to Ebert’s assertion that games are not art, I would have been reasonably positive about it. On the other hand, there’s an equal chance that after the first hour or two I would have just gotten bored and turned it off. Had I known what was in store for me, that’s exactly what I would have done. I just kept holding out for the payoff (like with Fable) that never came and when I was done I was mostly just glad to be done forever with it.
I don’t like to get involved in the “Are games art” debate in public because my opinions may offend my fellow developers, but I’ll say this: If you hold Bioshock up as an example of the best art that the games industry produces, then you’re essentially saying, to my ears, is, “Dawn of the Dead is the pinnacle of film.” (And that’s unfair to Dawn of the Dead, which is a pretty well-done satire on something very real: rampant consumerism.)
I don’t mean to criticize Irrational/2k Boston (the devs) either, or damn them with faint praise. Bioshock is absolutely one of the most polished game experiences I’ve had in awhile. I just felt quite misled by the hype preceding the game’s release as well as the first minute of the game (which is awesome and literally bears no relationship to the rest of the game).
Overall, I’d give Bioshock, say, a 9.1 rather than the 9.9s its been getting.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Ben
Sigh, well, I still remain impressed (but then I haven’t quite made it to the end battle)
(Warning, possibly more spoilers ahead, as well as pretentiously quoting an architect)
I’ll admit, I come at things from a different angle. You know my background, so obviously architecture and visual design are going to be my major thing.
Beyond just the sheer awe-inspiring shots of the city (yes, mostly in the first few minutes) they don’t just rely on the large strokes of architecture, they also do a great job of detailing, and as van der Rohe said, “God is in the details” While having the story told mostly through the tape recorders was clunky and awkward (hey, Doom 3 did it, why don’t we?) it was all the little touches they put in that really impressed me, or at least impressed me with their world builders. Like the drawings made by the little sisters, or the shock or treat machine that taught them to trust the big daddies. (My absolute favorite is the fact that if you look, you can see where the names of Atlas’ “family” come from, way before you find out the truth about him)
If anything, I felt they could have relied more on these subtle touches, and used the environment as more of a vehicle for the story rather than the recordings.
Although as much as I’ll praise the visual design, I did find something a little lacking in the way you progress through the world. No matter where you seemed to be in the city, the view out the window generally always felt the same. There’s always the big “Empire State Building” spire, and then a mass of buildings. But I never had the sense of looking out the window and being able to say, “ok, I was at that building before, and that’s where I started, and that’s the area I hope to get to” The first Prince of Persia remake did this really well if I remember correctly. It just seems a waste to me to plan out such a fantastic looking city and have it seem more backdrop than anything. I was convinced through most of the game that the huge spire would be the sight of the final battle, but given how close I am to the end, and far away it still is in the window, it doesn’t seem like that will be the case. (This may seem like a really odd complaint, but come on, it’s my job)
I won’t comment on gameplay or social commentary, as neither of these are things I put too critical an eye on.
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Mike Rozak
I’m an hour or two in. The linearity is really annoying me. I hate intestine-shaped levels… but I’ve experienced that in every FPS I’ve tried, as well as most CRPGs and adventure games.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Wolfe
I only played the Demo and was impressed by lots of things but not the gameplay. It didnt take many minutes of moving through rooms and doors to realize this was going to be a rather familiar experience.
When a game gives me the felling of the world collapsing behind my back as I move forward through it I lose all inspiration to go exploring, both the mechanics and the locations. I guess in my experience the FPS genre has too many old bad vibes, by just testing the game a little I convince myself that there will be places where I get stuck because I dont have the right “key”. Somehow Halo managed to keep me from jumping to this conclusion, probably by being really simple.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Jeff Freeman
Are you serious? I’ve seen reviews based on only having seen the game; darn few on having finished it; blog-wise these days, sometimes even just based on reading other reviews.
They aren’t payed to play games all day, dag nabbit.
Well, plus games used to be much, much, much, much longer… habits and policies and procedures and all that… They might not have realized that they can play the whole game for their review. Years of 100-hour games being delivered with less than 100-hours to deadline have surely trained them contrary to that.
Wouldn’t it be cool to review movies based on the opening scene? Heh.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Andrew Crystall
Jeff - I’ve seen a review of a game I worked on which was clearly based on the press release, let alone actually even seeing it. But hey, it gave us 90%.
*thud*
September 4th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Andrew Crystall
Oops, hit submit too soon..
Anyway, as for “games as art”, I don’t think many are (yet). The one I still hold up as the shining example is Planescape: Torment…
September 4th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Matt
I’m happy to consider games art actually. I just think they’re pretty much universally bad art, whether they’re good craft or not.
–matt
September 4th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Scott Chipman
Graphically it was very impressive but I think its forbears (System Shock 2 and Deus Ex) did a much better job. You had alot more control over the RPG elements of your player and the hacking/security stuff was alot more fun. Another let down to me was the water. Initially in the demo the water had a huge impact on the environment (especially that part when the plane smashes into the walkway and everything floods.) I had expected this level of volatile flooding and danger throughout the game but was sadly disappointed. The water more or less just becomes a set piece and nothing more. Also why the hell was there no swimming? You would think at least one area of Rapture would have water higher than waist-deep!
-Scott
September 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Matt Franklin
It’s unfair to trivialize fantastic presentation– incorporating advanced graphics technology, coherent art direction, integrated sound design, environment-appropriate action, smoothly flowing level design, and dozens of other major components– by calling it “pretty”.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Matt
Well, I mean, that\’s what it is to me as a player. The visuals largely stop mattering much to me once I get into the game. I\’ve made text MUDs for the last 10 years, remember. I didn\’t find the level flow to be particularly good either, though the sound was nice.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Brent Michael Krupp
Thank goodness for this review! I tried the demo and *really* didn’t like it but I thought it was just me. I guess it’s just you and me, or something. =/
September 4th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Matt Franklin
There’s still a large gulf between creating an environment with atmosphere, and making something pretty. I’d say it’s about as wide as the gulf between Bioshock and Aquanox. Of course, I am a sucker for visual atmosphere, even if not at the AAA level– Knytt is a favorite.
Regarding reviews: yes, primary reviewers at most major game publications do actually play the games all the way through. It’s a requirement, and they’re generally an honest bunch. (”Second opinions” and other such mini-reviews aren’t always given by people who’ve played all the way through.)
There are two big reasons reviewers won’t always disagree with you. One is the obvious. The other is the way in which they play games: they play a lot more than you do, and typically in very concentrated bursts. Most people do not have to play all the way through (horrible game X). Most people do not play all the way through (20 hour game Y) in 2 days for a deadline. It changes one’s tastes.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Matt
Matt Franklin wrote:
There’s still a large gulf between creating an environment with atmosphere, and making something pretty. I’d say it’s about as wide as the gulf between Bioshock and Aquanox. Of course, I am a sucker for visual atmosphere, even if not at the AAA level– Knytt is a favorite.
Sure, fair enough. It just doesn’t play all that greatly into how much I enjoy a game beyond the first hour or so.
–matt
September 5th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Michael Chui
Yeah. I watched a friend of a friend (and many other people besides) play BioShock while I was at PAX. It got boring for me about 10-15 minutes in; I’m sure actually holding the controller would have helped.
And as for this so-called “games as art” debate… ugh. I love how people think a game is art because it has an uncanny resemblance to a movie. Mario 64 was better art than this.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Andrew Crystall
Michael - It’s unrelated to visuals for me. What makes it art afaik is Pathos. You can really feel the story of TNO in Planescape Torment..