BioShock: The Collection

TrustedApple

Doodleking wrote: »

The only new thing in this collection is a documentary, that's all. I don't think it's worth paying $60 for something I already have

Only a silly Billy be paying 60 euros for it.

Seen must present orders at 33 pound so about 40 euros posted bargain if you tell me.

Nathan G

I think you can pick up each game individually for cheaper. especially on steam sales. within saying that, if they fix the countless bugs in the first game it would probably be worth it

This is out Friday

One of the most memorable setting I can remember in gaming for me personally.

Love how they have added the clips with Ken Levine into the game as collectables in the game

Really excited to play Survivor difficulty

Just to expand on this;

There has been nine trailers for the commentary which has been placed as collectibles in the game

Here's the first one but you can see all nine on the 2K YouTube channel.

I'm going to keep this thread going myself :P

Not many talk about Bioshocks amazing soundtrack.

Introduced me to this gem

BlitzKrieg

Infinite I think got somewhat better with the DLC (also applies to bioshock 2)

but it was a victim of its own storytelling in terms of gameplay. Infinite is designed that for almost the entire game you are on the run because thats what the narrative demands and its gunplay directly reflects this, all the changes made between the prior bioshocks and infinite reflect a gameplay designed for a character who is the focus of an all out assault.

Bioshock and bioshock 2 though is territorial, you arrive after the big event and are essentially crawling through the remains and everyone you run into is much more territorial, (Big Daddies being the most blatant example) but you are not what everyone is after so the combat is designed to be much more open to let you approach in different manners.

And these two designs are purely dictated by the story. Bioshock is disaster aftermath, Infinite you are the disaster. You can see this also later in infinite when the narrative shifts away from the status quo the gameplay shifts with it.

TrustedApple

I am still very on the wall of buying this. I have it pre ordered on Amazon i think for 28 pound so about 34 euros.

But i am not sure do i really wont to re play the 3 bio shock games from the start again ?. Yes there fantastic games but i am not sure at all about them as i have so much to play at the moment and i like at bioshock and go meh been there done that.

Other then the new paint job is there anything else that has been added to the games ?.

TrustedApple

TrustedApple wrote: »

I am still very on the wall of buying this. I have it pre ordered on Amazon i think for 28 pound so about 34 euros.

But i am not sure do i really wont to re play the 3 bio shock games from the start again ?. Yes there fantastic games but i am not sure at all about them as i have so much to play at the moment and i like at bioshock and go meh been there done that.

Other then the new paint job is there anything else that has been added to the games ?.

I don't like the industry practice of "Remasters" etc
But the industry has a tendency to live on past glory at the moment.
Doom was the only memorable game released this year IMO

However these games hold a special place in my heart. I can count with one hand the types of games that had such an effect on me, and this is one of them.

What has me exited is that the FPS associated with in-game animations has been increased not just the overall FPS and resolution as well as some texture rework which in turn effects the game-play in a positive way from what I have watched so far. Survivor mode is supposed to be a real test also.
And that's just the Original game.

The collection is actually well priced at 40 - 50 Euros retail for anyone who happened to miss out. The amount of content when you lay it out on the table is staggering.

For new content there is feature length commentary placed into the original game (about 10 - 15 in total featuring Ken Levine and the team). Nothing added game-play wise which hasn't already been released. See trailer above.

super_furry

One of those that I'll pick up in a half-price sale in a few months I reckon. Only seems like yesterday that Infinite came out.

Retr0gamer

I'm more interested in hearing how the original lives up. It still looks amazing but when I went back to it a few years ago it didn't grab me at all and I got bored of it fast.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm more interested in hearing how the original lives up. It still looks amazing but when I went back to it a few years ago it didn't grab me at all and I got bored of it fast.

Bit of broad comment but it all depends how invested you are in the game setting IMO

Some critic certain aspects of the game-play but I actually love it. It' a perfect blend of an FPS with RPG elements

Infinite pissed me off in that regard because it stripped out alot of what I loved about the original

It deserves to be played on the hardest difficulty with vita chambers off to really appreciate this however

Retr0gamer

Well I had played System shock 2 in the interim and Bioshock is a very dumbed down version of that game. SS2 might have spoiled me, it's the much better game. But still I don't think the combat held up when I played it and it was the least interesting aspect of the game. As for RPG elements, there wasn't enough there to keep me interested as opposed to SS2 which has dodgy combat but excellent RPG mechanics.

Also got pretty sick of playing pipemania when hacking.

I got the same feeling from Bioshock 2 as well.

I don't think the combat is good enough to sustain the length of both games, both are very long by modern standards. I say this because I adored Minerva's Den and the shorter length meant it didn't outstay its welcome like Bioshock 1 and 2. As for Infinite, the focus on combat that is even worse than the original 2 games makes it just a poor game in my eyes.

That comparison is that of what is essentially a stat driven game. This is making you feel like it's a dumbed down version of SS2
Bioshock is not that nor do is set out to be a stat driven game
If you watch the documentary released in 2007 the dev team of Irrational clearly state this. An FPS with RPG elements

super_furry

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm more interested in hearing how the original lives up. It still looks amazing but when I went back to it a few years ago it didn't grab me at all and I got bored of it fast.

Even at the time I thought it was a weak shooter. The fundamentals of it being an FPS were behind what other games were doing at the time, it was just that the story and setting elevated it and held your interest.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Even at the time I thought it was a weak shooter. The fundamentals of it being an FPS were behind what other games were doing at the time, it was just that the story and setting elevated it and held your interest.

I don't agree

Powers in one hand and customzied weapons in the other were not something other FPS games were doing at the same time

Retr0gamer

M!Ck^ wrote: »

That comparison is that of what is essentially a stat driven game. This is making you feel like it's a dumbed down version of SS2
Bioshock is not that nor do is set out to be a stat driven game
If you watch the documentary released in 2007 the dev team of Irrational clearly state this. An FPS with RPG elements

System Shock might have had stats but it was hardly a stat driven game, it was a systems driven game. The RPG elements came from how you could approach the game in a variety of manners. You had the choice between hacking, psychic powers and guns. It allowed you to min max in one area or focus on a different set of skills. That's what added the role playing, you were building the role of your character as you played and owning it.

Bioshock in comparison is a straight up shooter with some looting elements. There's a few RPG elements, items and upgrades that give slight stat boosts, but you always have access to all the powers and aren't making difficult choices in regards to forgoing abilities. No matter how you play you are approaching the game in the same way. The upgrades make very little difference.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I don't agree

Powers in one hand and customzied weapons in the other were not something other FPS games were doing at the same time

Dual powers like how bioshock did them were in PC games for years at that point. Clive Barker's Undying is an early example. Bioshock did add a bit more nuance though in the interplay between powers and guns.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

System Shock might have had stats but it was hardly a stat driven game, it was a systems driven game. The RPG elements came from how you could approach the game in a variety of manners. You had the choice between hacking, psychic powers and guns. It allowed you to min max in one area or focus on a different set of skills. That's what added the role playing, you were building the role of your character as you played and owning it.

Bioshock in comparison is a straight up shooter with some looting elements. There's a few RPG elements, items and upgrades that give slight stat boosts, but you always have access to all the powers and aren't making difficult choices in regards to forgoing abilities. No matter how you play you are approaching the game in the same way. The upgrades make very little difference.




Dual powers like how bioshock did them were in PC games for years at that point. Clive Barker's Undying is an early example. Bioshock did add a bit more nuance though in the interplay between powers and guns.

I disagree. And SS2 is a game that I love. However, yes it was most certainly a stat driven game.

Bioshock has more variation than you may think, it was up to the player to decide this however. Putting your Adam into different type of plasmids allowed for the player to decide what way he wanted to approach a given situation.
It wasn't supposed to be a game where you want to play as a marine so you invest heavily in this stat. Or you want to be hacker so you primarily invest in that stat.

But again that's not the point of this Bioshock nor did they ever elude to it being this type of game.
The comparison is an apple to an orange.

Comparisons to both games can me muddled anyway as Levine took inspiration for the story elements and collectibles like driving the story using collectible radios, However the game did not set out to be a direct squeal to the game-play of SS2.
They wanted it to be a story driven FPS with elements of RPG, and they call this out in multiple interviews prior to it's release.

Would be nice to see other examples of games that did allowed for both gunplay and powers. Clive Barkers Undying was released in 2001. I can't think of any other in the time period that Bioschock was released. I was addressing super-furrys comment but I don't see any facts to back it up.

super_furry

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I don't agree

Powers in one hand and customzied weapons in the other were not something other FPS games were doing at the same time

It was just window dressing though, sure you could shoot bees at someone or electrocute them if they stood in a puddle of water but your main weapons were guns and they didn't feel good. For me the core shooting was poor, it felt floaty and imprecise and lacked a punch with splicers soaking up bullets. It was well behind the shooting mechanics of other FPS games of that era.

Retr0gamer

Well you can say System Shock 2 was more stat driven and that you can play Bioshock is multiple different ways. All I know is that I found the System Shock 2 systems hugely satisfying and really aided replayability while I found Bioshock rather mundane where the choices you made made very little difference in how you played the game. Putting stats into different plasmids might make them a little stronger but not enough to make much of a difference and you always had access to that power, whereas locking yourself out of a power in favour of another was a legitimate choice the player had to make in SS2, and for me a more compelling on since every stat increase had consequences, consequences that Bioshock removed. Hell, even choosing to save the little sisters wasn't a hinderance since you go the Adam you missed out on back as presents from the little sisters. Without those RPG system hooks all that was left was the rather mundane combat. And while the combat was arguably better than System Shock 2, the fact it actually let you role play made it a far more compelling experience for me.

As for other games with dual wielding different weapons, Halo 2 and Wheel of Time are two others that come to mind. It really wasn't anything new and kind of built on what Halo did with the dichotomy between energy and ballistic weapons.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

It was just window dressing though, sure you could shoot bees at someone or electrocute them if they stood in a puddle of water but your main weapons were guns and they didn't feel good. For me the core shooting was poor, it felt floaty and imprecise and lacked a punch with splicers soaking up bullets. It was well behind the shooting mechanics of other FPS games of that era.

Not sure where we go with this one but I thoroughly enjoyed all the weapons and variation in each type. Especially when upgrading them. Nothing more satisfying than getting a splicer to hit a tornado trap then launching a homing rocket at him.
It was up to you to combine that creativity. If you chose to use the weapons on there own then this was maybe where you lost out.
And in response to weapon feedback...different ammo types allowed for variation in impact.
Take the Shotgun for example. Upgraded with Flame rounds was very satisfying.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well you can say System Shock 2 was more stat driven and that you can play Bioshock is multiple different ways. All I know is that I found the System Shock 2 systems hugely satisfying and really aided replayability while I found Bioshock rather mundane where the choices you made made very little difference in how you played the game. Putting stats into different plasmids might make them a little stronger but not enough to make much of a difference and you always had access to that power, whereas locking yourself out of a power in favour of another was a legitimate choice the player had to make in SS2, and for me a more compelling on since every stat increase had consequences, consequences that Bioshock removed. Hell, even choosing to save the little sisters wasn't a hinderance since you go the Adam you missed out on back as presents from the little sisters. Without those RPG system hooks all that was left was the rather mundane combat. And while the combat was arguably better than System Shock 2, the fact it actually let you role play made it a far more compelling experience for me.

As for other games with dual wielding different weapons, Halo 2 and Wheel of Time are two others that come to mind. It really wasn't anything new and kind of built on what Halo did with the dichotomy between energy and ballistic weapons.

But you didn't always have access to those powers. Unless you unlocked 6 plasmid slots. This was further towards the end of the game when you had enough adam which opened up the combat even more. Sure you could switch them out put that was only at the plasmid stations.
Did I hold on to telekenisis but get rid of electro bolt?
I could use chairs as weapons with prox mines stuck to them or I can grab loot from a distance or up high in areas previously in-accessible but at a cost because I couldn't access a secret room without electro-bolting the lock or electrocute splicers in water.

Dual wielding weapons and dual wielding weapons & powers are not the same

Retr0gamer

It was always only a bit of an inconvenience to change weapons though if you wanted to access those secrets since there was always somewhere to switch plasmids. You were never locking yourself out of abilities.

It's true that Bioshock gave you a lot of options but I just never found fighting the splicers satisfying. Big Daddy fights were at least a bit better. Anyway I always found myself leaning on the electrocution attack which was OP. Disables anything electric, insta kill on water which was everywhere and a disabling status effect on any other enemy it hit.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Dual wielding weapons and dual wielding weapons & powers are not the same

Getting into pedantics here. A rose by any other name is still a rose. In most of those dual wielding games I mentioned you are setting up traps and using elemental effects with spells to weaken opponents to take out with your damage dealers. It's kind of the same in Halo, take out a shield with energy weapons and switch to ballistics.

Kirby

You can go through the entire game without using guns. In one playthrough, I just used powers and the wrench. There is freedom in that. If you dont like a particular gun....or any of them, don't use them. There is several legit ways of killing each enemy. There is no "use the shotgun on this enemy type" enemy. You could use what you liked.

That is the one thing in Infinite that I thought they did worse than the original. You sort of have to use guns in infinite. I didnt mind it per se, but it was less choice.

Beefy78

Personally I loathe FPS games. It is a genre that I don't see any attraction in. I loved Bioshock because it is a plot-driven game, with great characterisation, mood and setting. it just happened to be an FPS. I'm sure that there are 'better' pure FPS games but I don't think that was ever the selling point.

CiDeRmAn

I enjoyed both Bioshock and the second sequel, but it really was dual wielding by another name.
I enjoyed the fiction in each title more than the gameplay, which was vanilla in the main.
Yes, it gave you plenty of options with which to deal with the enemy, but you mostly defaulted to your personal weapon/plasmid preference all the time, outside of specific areas that needed a specific approach.
In this regard it reminded me of the much older Super Metroid, you can have a favourite weapon, use it all the time and forget about the rest, outside of certain environmental puzzles when, suddenly, your beam, missile or super bomb becomes essential.
Bioshock was a mix of great visuals, a great setting, great story telling and an excellent VO cast.
By the time the first sequel came out it was getting tired because everyone else, such as Doom 3 for example, was putting audio logs dotted about the place, the new collectible, and it just felt like a rerun of the original.
Infinity got the same things right as the original except the game bit, as you ended up with a gorgeous hyperviolent game that spent much of it's time trapping you in areas until x amount of enemies were defeated. The story was fantastic, as were the visuals, but the dimension tear feature that was in so many trailers wound up to be a damp squib. Still enjoyed the title, but not the game, if you know what I mean.

CiDeRmAn

Beefy78 wrote: »

Personally I loathe FPS games. It is a genre that I don't see any attraction in. I loved Bioshock because it is a plot-driven game, with great characterisation, mood and setting. it just happened to be an FPS. I'm sure that there are 'better' pure FPS games but I don't think that was ever the selling point.

I'd say you should be careful suggesting that you loathe FPS, particularly when there are so many out there.
Essentially, and people forget, it is simply the POV of the player character, outside of that the gameplay is infinitely variable, and games using the first person view have been combat specific, like Doom 2016, adventure driven, the Metroid Prime Trilogy, we've had puzzle titles, The Witness and more sophisticated titles, like Soma or Firewatch.
I wouldn't discount any title due to genre, before at least trying them out and making a call then.

Beefy78

True. I guess my point was that I'll get on board with any style of game if the things that I connect with (story, setting, character) work. FPS games wouldn't be my cup of tea generally so I'd overlook that something in the core mechanic of the game may have been done better elsewhere.

To me, that Bioshock is an FPS game is completely incidental.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I enjoyed both Bioshock and the second sequel, but it really was dual wielding by another name.
I enjoyed the fiction in each title more than the gameplay, which was vanilla in the main.
Yes, it gave you plenty of options with which to deal with the enemy, but you mostly defaulted to your personal weapon/plasmid preference all the time, outside of specific areas that needed a specific approach.
In this regard it reminded me of the much older Super Metroid, you can have a favourite weapon, use it all the time and forget about the rest, outside of certain environmental puzzles when, suddenly, your beam, missile or super bomb becomes essential.
Bioshock was a mix of great visuals, a great setting, great story telling and an excellent VO cast.
By the time the first sequel came out it was getting tired because everyone else, such as Doom 3 for example, was putting audio logs dotted about the place, the new collectible, and it just felt like a rerun of the original.
Infinity got the same things right as the original except the game bit, as you ended up with a gorgeous hyperviolent game that spent much of it's time trapping you in areas until x amount of enemies were defeated. The story was fantastic, as were the visuals, but the dimension tear feature that was in so many trailers wound up to be a damp squib. Still enjoyed the title, but not the game, if you know what I mean.

Unfair assessment really
Some consider Bioshock 2 to have superior game-play to that of the first

Also,
Doom 3 was released in 2004
Bioshock was released in 2007
How they handled audio logs to drive story was completely different
And I wouldn't consider Doom 3 having any sort of memorable character or story for that matter
So I'm not understanding how this would have impacted Bioshock 2 in any way

Stinkypete

Im 100 percent looking forward to this was gunna get recore but the reviews are brutal so this will be a good one to get

Launch Trailer

CiDeRmAn

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Unfair assessment really
Some consider Bioshock 2 to have superior game-play to that of the first

Some might, most don't

Metacritic Bioshock 96%

Metacritic Bioshock 2 88%

Also,
Doom 3 was released in 2004
Bioshock was released in 2007
How they handled audio logs to drive story was completely different
And I wouldn't consider Doom 3 having any sort of memorable character or story for that matter
So I'm not understanding how this would have impacted Bioshock 2 in any way

Fair enough about Doom 3, I keep forgetting that it was out on the Xbox, despite still owning the thing.

Doom 3, however, was critised for being story driven which detracted, and distracted, from the action.
This was well covered in the excellent reviews for Doom 2016 that avoided anything other than a mild plot element, a feature, or lack of a feature, that improved the game over the previous title.

I bought Bioshock 2 on release and simply didn't enjoy it, if felt like a retread of the previous game and the antagonist was nowhere near as compelling, nor was the protagonist for that matter.
The bottlenecks for the setting of traps whilst waiting for the little sisters to finish their business were a complete drag, and I moved on to something less boring instead.

Hey, you liked it, good for you.
I didn't.