whats better bioshock 1 or 2

shadowcomplex

whats better bioshock 1 or 2

ShadowHearth

loved bouth, but 1st one was just... WOOOOOOOOOOOW


just checked on bioshock infinite, and it made me WWOWOowowowoOWOWOWOWOWwwwwwOOOOOOOOWWOoooWWWWOWOWOWOWOWWOWOWOWOWOWOWO

SeantheMan

1

Definitely 1 , I enjoyed 2 aswell.....but Andrew Ryan and Atlas we're just so amazing as characters !! ...they made me question my morals ...the 2nd game was unable to replicate the deep questions posed by the first, or affect me in the same way.

humanji

Go for System Shock 2. The graphics are dated, but it's better than both of the Bioshocks.

But if you can't find that, then Bioshock 1. Bioshock 2 doesn't really add much to the whole stpry and world and just comes off as a bit of a cheap knock off.

Frisbee

Bioshock for me, absolutely loved it.

Bioshock 2 I was pretty unimpressed with. Nothing really added to the story and nothing could come close to Ryan and Atlas from the first game.
Also

In the first game Big Daddys are portrayed as bad ass mofo's who are really hard to take down. Yet you play a Big Daddy in the second one and are no tougher than you were in the first, and well aimed sneeze from a Splicer can take you down.. Poor continuity.

Sabre0001

1 is better in my opinion but enjoyed both.

Gooch2k4

1 is waaaaaay better, storywise, and 2 is practically the same gameplay wise

BigDuffman

1st was better in terms of story line and originality. The 2nd as previous posters mentioned does not continue the line very well considering the whole "original big daddy thing" I was expect ultra hardcore character.

For an RPG seriers both bioshocks majorly lack interactions with NPCs other than shooting them in the face.

shadowcomplex

are the graphics improved much is 2?

marco_polo

shadowcomplex wrote: »

are the graphics improved much is 2?

Roughly the the same, although I thought that BS2 looked a little better in terms of lighting, reflections etc. However some of the texturing were extremely lazy on the developers part and a step backwards.

In terms of grandious Level design and general wow factor (maybe because I had seen it all before), BS1 definately wins hands down IMO.

humanji

shadowcomplex wrote: »

are the graphics improved much is 2?

Not a huge amount. and I kind of felt the gameplay was more action based as opposed to the first one being more of a survival horror game.

The world seemed more impressive in the first one. The second one did what all sequels did and just made it bigger with more explosions. It's still impressive, but the opening hour of Bioshock was fantastic, benig introduced to this new world.

ShadowHearth

humanji wrote: »

Go for System Shock 2. The graphics are dated, but it's better than both of the Bioshocks.

But if you can't find that, then Bioshock 1. Bioshock 2 doesn't really add much to the whole stpry and world and just comes off as a bit of a cheap knock off.

here we go again, i knew this will come up... :rolleyes:


maybe its a copy or whatever, but bioshock got its own amazing charm, feeling,set up. and the damn thing is UNDERWATER and its 60s futuristic setting!!! If i remember correctly, system shock was not set in the middle of oceaon.

so no, those are not similar games, they got different spirits.

even if its copied stuff, it made something unique and amazing, and people who enjoy the game, dont give a crap!

Burning Eclipse

I would consider Bioshock to be one of my favourite games. I also enjoyed 2 a lot. I think I get's a bad reputation that it doesn't deserve. I personally think the combat in 2 is better than the original and even though others on this thread don't agree, I also think the level design was better in the second game. That said, the second game has nothing on the first in terms of story, and story is the reason I loved the original Bioshock so much. If I could only play one, it would of course be Bioshock, but 2 is still a very capable game taken by itself. It just had far too much to live up to.

humanji

ShadowHearth wrote: »

here we go again, i knew this will come up... :rolleyes:


maybe its a copy or whatever, but bioshock got its own amazing charm, feeling,set up. and the damn thing is UNDERWATER and its 60s futuristic setting!!! If i remember correctly, system shock was not set in the middle of oceaon.

so no, those are not similar games, they got different spirits.

even if its copied stuff, it made something unique and amazing, and people who enjoy the game, dont give a crap!

Gameplay is practically identical. Stories have a lot of similarities. It's created by the same people who themselves call Bioshock the spiritual successor of System Shock. So why is it a bad thing to recommend something that I see as being the better game? OP asked a question, which I answered and gave a third option. That's all I did.

ShadowHearth

humanji wrote: »

Gameplay is practically identical. Stories have a lot of similarities. It's created by the same people who themselves call Bioshock the spiritual successor of System Shock. So why is it a bad thing to recommend something that I see as being the better game? OP asked a question, which I answered and gave a third option. That's all I did.

so yeah, op askes 1 or 2, not Z. i just so many people are QQing about it, cant they just play the damn games?!

back on topic. have to agree with one of the post above, 2 had better combat indeed, more flexible, more choises etc. you could even dump all weapons and be pure big daddy with drill !

but the story and those little scary moments, where you get cought with pantd down, made me fall in love with 1. atmosthere was just so amazing, not alot of games can do this now... not alot...

really looking forward to infinite. i am surprised there are no talks about it, i founded out about it by accsident mysefl!!!

Retr0gamer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

here we go again, i knew this will come up... :rolleyes:

He is right though.

Shiminay

Am I the only gamer in the world who thought Bioshock was rubbish? I thought it was incredibly boring and unimaginative and frustrating instead of being difficult. A really, really poor "spiritual" successor to the amazing game that was SS2. Honestly, what I thought was "ah, a dumbed down console version of SS2" when I played it and so didn't really see the appeal of playing a game I knew was inferior in every way (except graphically, but that really doesn't count as SS2's graphics were solid for it's day).

I'm told the full story is quite good, I will admit that the bit I indulged in was pretty interesting.

Did they come out on PC? Maybe if I got to play it with a proper control interface I might think differently. FPS' on consoles are too much of an annoyance to me.

marco_polo

Kharn wrote: »

Am I the only gamer in the world who thought Bioshock was rubbish? I thought it was incredibly boring and unimaginative and frustrating instead of being difficult. A really, really poor "spiritual" successor to the amazing game that was SS2. Honestly, what I thought was "ah, a dumbed down console version of SS2" when I played it and so didn't really see the appeal of playing a game I knew was inferior in every way (except graphically, but that really doesn't count as SS2's graphics were solid for it's day).

I'm told the full story is quite good, I will admit that the bit I indulged in was pretty interesting.

Did they come out on PC? Maybe if I got to play it with a proper control interface I might think differently. FPS' on consoles are too much of an annoyance to me.

Are you sure you are not blaming Bioshock for having two left thumbs :pac:. Disagree completely with the boring part, however the PC controls were a little annoying as well though.

SS2 was/is an epic game but for shame, it is very difficult to a copy nowadays (For a reasonable price anyway)

Venom

Kharn wrote: »

Am I the only gamer in the world who thought Bioshock was rubbish? I thought it was incredibly boring and unimaginative and frustrating instead of being difficult. A really, really poor "spiritual" successor to the amazing game that was SS2. Honestly, what I thought was "ah, a dumbed down console version of SS2" when I played it and so didn't really see the appeal of playing a game I knew was inferior in every way (except graphically, but that really doesn't count as SS2's graphics were solid for it's day).

I'm told the full story is quite good, I will admit that the bit I indulged in was pretty interesting.

Did they come out on PC? Maybe if I got to play it with a proper control interface I might think differently. FPS' on consoles are too much of an annoyance to me.

Nope you are so not alone in thinking Bioshock was rubbish

A pretty mediocre game imho.

J. Marston

Bioshock 1 is better, now would you kindly go out and buy it.

deathrider

I really think I'm the only gamer who didn't enjoy the Bioshock games. I really don't understand the hype behind them. There was nothing special about them. I think I spent more time hacking systems than I did anything else in the first game. Then again, each to there own.

Sarky

Kharn wrote: »

Am I the only gamer in the world who thought Bioshock was rubbish?

You are not.
I tried, I really did. But apart from the admittedly very pretty art deco visuals, it gave me nothing new. I watched someone else complete it, and wasn't at all surprised by the plot twists and ending. It was well-done and very polished looking, yes, but... Meh. Not to mention the tape-recordings and the ghosts. Bioshock might be many things, but unique it most certainly is not.

Did they come out on PC? Maybe if I got to play it with a proper control interface I might think differently. FPS' on consoles are too much of an annoyance to me.

Bioshock 1 made it to PC, at least, it's how I played it. Still feels like a console game. I found it lacking overall. It's a bog-standard shooter with a well-written plot, and that would be ok if the plot had been new. And they hadn't cut out most of the fetures of SS2 that made the game actually stand out.


EDIT: That said, if you had to choose between Bioshocks 1 and 2, go for 1. 2 is more of the same old thing, which was ALREADY more of the same old thing.

Goodshape

I played System Shock 2 for the first time while waiting for Bioshock to come out. Thought that made sense with all the talk of this being a 'Spiritual Successor', and it was a game I has always heard good things about.

Was absolutely enthralled by SS2. Even with the dated graphics it was an outstanding game. Probably one of the best single player games I've played, along with Dues Ex.

Then Bioshock.... god, what a disappointment . Just seemed a slower, easier, more action orientated, much more "forgiving", and also less interesting re-imagining of the same story. Couldn't get into it at all.

gimli2112

Could not get into the game at all. Started it afresh several times but just meh!

Sasquatch76

gimli2112 wrote: »

Could not get into the game at all. Started it afresh several times but just meh!

Same here. I'll complete it one day, but it's nowhere near the top of my priority list now.

valleyoftheunos

I've only played 2 but was totally sucked into it, atmospheric, detailed and affecting. I found myself determined to rescue the little sisters whatever the cost.

SeantheMan

People should let the game stand on its own merits and not compare it constantly to SS2.

Alone it is an amazing game.

evad_lhorg

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He is right though.

yea but no one feckin asked!!!:rolleyes: damn PC geeks;)

VenomIreland

evad_lhorg wrote: »

yea but no one feckin asked!!!:rolleyes: damn PC geeks;)

Who cares if no-one asked? They are providing a superior alternative.