This is a thread about reviews that aren't (BioShock)

Forums > Game Forums > BioShock > This is a thread about reviews that aren't

Lumpi (189) on 4/1/2008 7:27 PM · Permalink · Report

Does anyone here understand what the author of this lengthy and slightly schizophrenic Bioshock review is talking about?

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/bioshock/reviews/reviewerId,97350/

I would agree with many things in the text, but I don't quite see how this could be (a) a review or (b) a constructive insight into the reviewing process in general. It's largely about the word definition of "art" (for me, by the way, it is "communicating what couldn't be communicated with traditional means" which elevates the interactive nature of games to a very interesting medium for "art").

By most definitions used by game-art-sceptics, they shouldn't accept "Pulp Fiction" as art as well, since it's mainly about shooting people and taking drugs. I mean what do we know about the characters except for them being bad motherf*s doing small-talk? Yet it won a Palme d'Or.

To be on the save side, I would rather refer to the strange titles found at playthisthing.com as "art" than a major blockbuster title like Bioshock. But if it isn't art, aren't "buy guides" the appropriate medium for writing about big, largely commercial titles like Bioshock?

I don't know. I thought I could get something out of this bizarre "review" but just couldn't. And I wonder if missed something, failed to read between the lines. What do you guys think?

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/1/2008 8:02 PM · Permalink · Report

Well, I happen to know the author of this review personally; perhaps this fact helps me to understand his point more clearly, although I think it is clear enough anyway. He liked "Bioshock" because this game "conceals" its artistic elements behind a simple shooter canvas. Unlike games like "Planescape: Torment", which requires patience and which can only be enjoyed by "intellectual" gamers, "Bioshock" appeals to the mass just as it appeals to those who see games as an art form.

Sciere (930490) on 4/1/2008 8:14 PM · Permalink · Report

My best BioShock moments were spent wandering, admiring the environment. I didn't feel like shooting anyone.

MichaelPalin (1414) on 4/2/2008 12:58 PM · Permalink · Report

I didn't feel like shooting anyone.

And yet, you did have to shoot everyone. "A game for everyone" my ass, what happens with the non-mainstream gamer who looks for something more deep? When studios develop games for the major public, they forget the non-casual gamers. Would it be so difficult to make a game that can be played with depth or casually depending on your likings? Because that is probably the only way to save "deep-gaming" considering how things are right now. For example, you can skip audio logs in Bioshock if you only like killing, but you cannot do much more if you don't feel like killing.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 4:05 PM · Permalink · Report

My sentiments exactly. If I want to play just a "cool shooter" I still play "Doom". No distraction (looking up/down, jumping, crouching, characters, attributes, story, pseudo-quests/puzzles, scenery admiring etc.), just the wonderful purity of run-strafe-kill.

Now if I play a modern shooter I expect a lot more than that, and if it has a story, I like that story to intervene or maybe even question all the shooting going on. I don't want it to be "hidden" so that it doesn't distract the frag-crowd, I want a story to confront me.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 4:14 PM · Permalink · Report

Okay. You want that. What about those people who want precisely what Bioshock did? Hiding the story in the game? What about me, lasttoblame, and those others who like precisely that? You gotta see the other sides, man. No game can cater to everyone. I understand that you don't like the sort of thing Bioshock does, but believe it or not, many people do dig it.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 10:01 PM · Permalink · Report

Oh I do believe that many people "dig that". I know both "BioShock" and "System Shock" sales figures. One of those is more "shocking" than the other, and that's sad. I don't object to either game, but they should exist in some form of equilibrium. I do see the other sides though, I absolutely do! I WANT diversity!

But because of these all-dominating hype-fest games we get to see less and less of them other sides, only more Half-Life 3 and Halo 4, or something similarish, slightly cloaked. Got to turn my eyes to the east and watch for stalkers, I guess.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/3/2008 11:18 AM · Permalink · Report

I know both "BioShock" and "System Shock" sales figures. One of those is more "shocking" than the other, and that's sad.

Why? Because they had better PR now? Better publicity? Because meanwhile more and more people have discovered System Shock games and wanted to buy the successor? I still don't see why it's sad.

I don't object to either game, but they should exist in some form of equilibrium.

To demand such an equilibrium in video game market is like to demand that there should be more intelligent people in the world than stupid ones. Even though I find the Bioshock example inappropriate, because I personally feel it fully "deserves" the highest sales figures, it's a known fact that some of the best games sell poorly and some less good ones sell better. There will never be equilibrium, just as there is no equilibrium in intelligence of human beings.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/3/2008 11:59 AM · Permalink · Report

It's sad that so many great games are overlooked. However, I second the rest of what you're saying, sad enough. Still: more diversity with more (smaller) products = opens up more markets = more profit in the long run for gaming companies = more, and more diverse, games for us to play.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/3/2008 12:37 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Games and their stories are inbreeding. Almost every game tells exactly the same story with exactly the same characters - sure there are differences, but those are rather minimal and no, that the name of the character is different doesn't make him/her essentially different. And no, "the way you present it" doesn't matter when you've eaten the same shit for 30 years. And surprisingly, in the past there's more chance to find diversity - we haven't really had cheap romance novel story like Plundered Hearts, have we? The thing is, with this market what worldwidewierd described, in where 90 % of made games are considered failures and only 10% are successful, the games and their stories will inbreed even more. And that's really boring. Diversity is everything. I might not like cheap romance novel stories but I would like there would be something for that audience in games, I might not like shows like Smallville or Roswell but I'd sure like if there would be something for that kind of an audience, and of course I'd like to have my kind of thing to. But games are becoming more and more similar, and the stories they offer are becoming less and less distinctive from each other. And so there ain't anything really for those audiences and there ain't really anything for me. And that's why I assume "intelligent gamers" are so pissed-off is because while the "stupid guy" who wants stupid games gets his games, for most of the intelligent gamers the last game made especially for them was in 1999. And so, they have spent 10 years waiting for something like that to happen again, and thus they waisted their lives since it's really stupid to wait for a game and they are unhappy and that's why they are so pissed-off.

I was adding my thoughts to the diversity thing here and this isn't addressed to Bioshock.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 4:06 PM · Permalink · Report

Dude, sorry, but this is pure subjective whining. You are looking for something deep - alright, if "Bioshock" ain't deep enough for you, go and get something deeper. What's with this arrogant "if this game doesn't give me what I want, it shouldn't be made" attitude? So you like deep games. But my neighbor John Smith likes unpretentious, straightforward shooters. So he can come and say "Planescape Torment sucks donkey ass because it's all dialogues and not even a bit of shooting!" with exactly the same right as you say "what happens with the non-mainstream gamer?". If you hate "Bioshock" and think it's not deep enough - sure, that's your opinion; but you gotta accept the game the way it is; and if it was developed for "major public", then tough luck for you, but it doesn't mean that the developers had to think of your preferences more than of mine or of John Smith's.

You are making the same mistake as I did when reviewing Half-Life 2 for the first time.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 4:20 PM · Permalink · Report

I'm not sure he's making a mistake. I don't have a problem with faster-funnier games, but if I want any of those I can choose from millions. The market is full, literally - and studios know it. However, if I'm looking for more unusual and "artsy" stuff, I need an Irish drunk to point me to independant five-buck games about trespassing Rabbis. How strange is that? I'm not trying to domintate the market, it's the market trying to dominate me.

I'm not criticising "BioShock", I just think that one shouldn't always stop at the "still-everybody's-darling" point-of-no-return when making a game because this behaviour, in the long run, keeps gaming DOWN and billions of customers OUT, as culture, as art, in schools and universities, heck, even as a mainstream accepted non-nerd hobby you can talk about with women (I know the situation is changing, but still...). We'd need a lot more great games than we have now to make the world believe that gaming does not NEED to be just silly-telly.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 4:33 PM · Permalink · Report

I absolutely understand your need to get artsy games without resorting to help from drunk Irishmen and religious Jews. What I don't understand is why it is Bioshock's problem. Why criticize Bioshock for not fulfilling your requirements? In other words, why do you think that the developers of Bioshock were obliged to think of you looking for unusual and artsy stuff? (I actually think Bioshock as about as unusual and as artsy as it goes, but that's just a matter of opinion, of course).

I'm not trying to domintate the market, it's the market trying to dominate me.

So has it always been, and so will it be. At least in capitalist societies. Mozart also composed for the "market". And we all know what happens to art when it is controlled by government instead of the market, like in ex-Soviet Union. If it wasn't optimist, socially realistic, and about Lenin's childhood, then it was not accepted.

For better or worse, that's the situation, and we should be thankful that there are still great games coming from everywhere, that developers are trying, that there are true artists among them; and frankly, I think the market's domination is very, very mild. So yes, for every Planescape: Torment there are 10 generic licensed hack-and-slash games, but at least there are games like Planescape: Torment.

In fact, that's precisely the reason why I like Bioshock; it could've been just another FPS. A great one, with amazing atmosphere and action, but just another FPSs. Instead, they bothered to include so much content and background story in the game. They didn't have to do it, but they still did. So it's not all about market domination.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 4:56 PM · Permalink · Report

I hope I don't come across too leftist. I'm not criticising "BioShock" at all, however, it's a nice example to discuss these matters with since the discussion about its presumably dissatisfied CREATOR (not the game itself) started the discussion. Sort of. And, of course, lasttoblame's article about the greatness of "hiding" one's class so the general crowd won't see it which I don't necessarily think is a good thing since it's "levelling" products, not underlining their differences, but their similarities - and I'm all for differences.

I don't want to damn the market (eh...). Still, as I was watching Mr. Spector's gaming lecture I couldn't help but feel that something in the industry is mighty awkward. Spector thinks it is, heck, the business dude from EA thinks it is. It's a strange (and unusual) market where 10% of products make 90% of the income, and where 80% of the (finished!) games are considered commercial failures. That's where "BioShock" pops in. It may inhibit the production of numerous smaller, more diversified products even more and push the already present notion of creating fewer big-buck chunks with potential appeal for anyone, thus killing diversity, and that's a problem of the game industry today, not necessarily with capitalism in general.

By the way, I DON'T want to "force" people to art by state degree, good heavens. And, as I said, I'm not trying to throw a general bomb into capitalism. However, historically speaking, "thankfulness" didn't really boost human development either, so I don't think I need to be thankful for the odd intelligent games out there, no sir. I should demand more.

My hands hurt from writing...

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 5:34 PM · Permalink · Report

Now that I think of it, I don't have time to play half of what's interesting to me out there NOW...maybe the situation is not that bleak after all...

MichaelPalin (1414) on 4/2/2008 7:09 PM · Permalink · Report

You haven't understood my complaint.

For some years now, game industry is getting more mainstream and games (some say, but I'm not totally sure) are getting more costly to develop. For this reason, many games are recycling old formulas and doing them for the masses, a lot of people that avoid the depth and goes for the easy and dumb fun. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes want that to. The problem is that, they are wasting many good ideas and many old games in order to please the major public possible. Oblivion is Morrowind for everybody, which was Daggerfall for many; Bioshock is System Shock 2 for everybody; I heard Heroes V is also a shadow of what it was; Dark Messiah of Might & Magic is total rubbish, etc. I have not too many examples to tell, right, but in general, the game industry goes for the biggest sales possible. Just see how your better example of a deep game is 10 years old.

My complaint is that, and I'll use Bioshock because it is a very good example of this, when they go for all the clients possible, they barely try when it comes to old-school gamers. They give you the possibility not to kill the little sisters but, why not make the same with the splicers and let you talk with them, ally with them or something?, why not let some NPCs to make something more out of the world of Rapture? why not give the opportunity to interact more with the environment? why not give a chance to exploration? They have forgotten us completely and I think is specially unfair when they come with a game like this and say "Hey!, this is a spiritual successor of a game you liked a lot in the past, except that we have reduce all what you liked about it to anecdotal features and we have enhanced all what most of the games in the market have already". You are playing SS2 right now, you really don't understand what am I talking about?

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 7:44 PM · Permalink · Report

Bioshock is System Shock 2 for everybody

Why? A complex story with social and philosophical overtones is for everybody, while a simple sci-fi B-movie plot is for a few "chosen ones"? A magnificent, uniquely designed city in an alternate reality of the 1960-ies is for everybody, and a generic space ship in a standard sci-fi setting is not?

You are playing SS2 right now, you really don't understand what am I talking about?

Yes, I do, but I still don't see what the fuss is about. I love SS2. In some ways more than Bioshock, in some ways less. Yes, it has deeper gameplay, it's more complex, much more frustrating too. It's more a survival horror game, while Bioshock is a pure action-oriented FPS. So?

I didn't even pay attention to the simplifications. Bioshock is magnificent in its own way, why to compare it to SS2 all the time?

MichaelPalin (1414) on 4/2/2008 9:45 PM · Permalink · Report

Why?

Because culture for the masses right now is, as lasttoblame said in the review, about shock value. Bioshock has much more shock value than SS2. You can finish Bioshock without even paying attention to the story, there is even an arrow telling you where to go. You can pick the game for 5 minutes, kill some guys around and go on with your life. Are depth stories for the masses? Mostly not, because the culture on which we feed is not deep, is a culture based on fast pleasure (for what I know, if you live in a big city in China, you can see that everyday). Masses may read things like "The Pillars of the Earth", which has a deep story, but in videogames at least, depth is not for the masses. I don't see my mother playing anything deeper than Brain Training, for instance.

I didn't even pay attention to the simplifications. Bioshock is magnificent in its own way, why to compare it to SS2 all the time?

Then you don't now what the discussion is all about. The guys from Irrational Games explicitly said it was the spiritual successor to SS games, that's why. SS2 is a cult game for many reasons and none of them are SS2 being an FPS. If they didn't say anything about SS, we wouldn't have any reason to compare it to them.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/3/2008 11:27 AM · Permalink · Report

I do know what the discussion is about, because that kind of reasoning is precisely what I don't agree with. First of all, why is your definition of "spiritual successor" better than the developers' one? You say it's not a spiritual successor because it's an FPS. I say it is a spiritual successor for millions of other reasons: unique story-telling technique. The particular ability of creating atmosphere. The story line itself. Characterization. Usage of sound effects. Attention to detail. Interactivity. Gameplay elements. And so on. So if you don't feel that it's a spiritual successor, it's just because your definition of this concept varies from somebody else's.

Second, I generally can't understand this "whining" attitude: they promised... they said... and now... it's all different! Buuuh!!! Seriously... it's not cool. So you were disappointed. And you are letting the disappointment to cloud your judgment up to the point of mentioning an arrow (which can be removed in the options!) influence your negative opinion of the game. Not noticing the elephant because of a mosquito...

MichaelPalin (1414) on 4/4/2008 9:21 AM · Permalink · Report

So every time that an ad says something and don't deliver, they can use the excuse that maybe their definition is not our definition.

SS2 was an FPS with important adds to the gameplay in the form of role-playing and adventure. It also had a multiplayer mode following the single player plot. The plot was very complex and good and the immersion in this survival horror game was total, from the start to the end. All of this was done in 1999. What do we have 8 years later? An FPS that is only an FPS (linear object gathering is closer to checkpoints racing than to adventure) with a good story (with a rather typical plot twist, by the way) and very artistic level design. The major problem is that, after 3 levels or so, the gameplay becomes so repetitive that you barely care about the plot anymore. The game is good, it even excels as an FPS, but it is not great further than that, it has failed as a spiritual successor of SS2.

I'm not whining and I don't let my disappointment cloud anything, because my criticism is done with objectivity and my disappointment is due to a good reason, that it was advertised, at least, unfairly. And, yes, the mosquito doesn't let me see the elephant, but it happens that the "mosquito" is the whole gameplay of the game, that doesn't let me enjoy the plot.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/4/2008 11:15 AM · Permalink · Report

So every time that an ad says something and don't deliver, they can use the excuse that maybe their definition is not our definition

No, because the practical use and quality of everyday products are apparent. The quality of games are not, it is a subject to different definitions. You can objectively judge the quality of a toothbrush. You can't objectively judge the quality of a work of art.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if you don't like "Bioshock" taken as it is, as a game, regardless of advertisement and other bullshit, then I won't say a word. I like it, you don't like it. No hard feelings.

But if you say that you don't like it because it didn't "deliver what it promised", then I say it's not cool.

my disappointment is due to a good reason, that it was advertised, at least, unfairly

No, it's not a good reason. The other reasons you mention, as subjective as they are, are valid. This one is not. Advertisement is not part of a game.

You can see it by asking yourself a simple question: would you like "Bioshock" if you've never heard anything about its connection to "System Shock 2"? Would you like it if you discovered it some day by accident, without knowing anything about its roots?

MichaelPalin (1414) on 4/4/2008 1:51 PM · Permalink · Report

Ok, discussion settled then, I never said it's a bad game. I actually enjoyed it for a while.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/4/2008 9:19 PM · Permalink · Report

Ok, discussion settled then, I never said it's a bad game. I actually enjoyed it for a while.

I'm sure you'll like it even more if you try not to compare it to System Shock and forget about the stupid advertisement.

But then we have such reviews, in which the game is rated half a star out of five and the entire criticism (except the part where he says that the story did nothing to him) is a constant, obsessive comparison to System Shock 2. This is reversed fanboyism in its purest form.

worldwideweird (29) on 4/2/2008 8:42 PM · Permalink · Report

Yes, I think it's a problem that games have grown to become investments of a proportion that you HAVE to get everyone behind it to make it a success (what I said: 10% of games - 90% of profits). I think that if they started creating 10 games à 2 mil. $ instead of one guaranteed-hit game for 20 $ (with 200+ people working on it) the market could actually expand a lot more than today, not forget the "wanna depth" gamers and be, in the long run, more profitable as well. The problem is that too many people don't think about said "in the long run".

worldwideweird (29) on 4/1/2008 8:23 PM · Permalink · Report

Doesn't that make it particularly easy to ignore the art in "BioShock"? Shouldn't we rather get more people to actively enjoy art (always a difficult term) instead of "concealing" it?

Lumpi (189) on 4/1/2008 9:09 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start JazzOleg wrote--]Well, I happen to know the author of this review personally; perhaps this fact helps me to understand his point more clearly, although I think it is clear enough anyway. He liked "Bioshock" because this game "conceals" its artistic elements behind a simple shooter canvas. Unlike games like "Planescape: Torment", which requires patience and which can only be enjoyed by "intellectual" gamers, "Bioshock" appeals to the mass just as it appeals to those who see games as an art form. [/Q --end JazzOleg wrote--]

Hmm, I see. I guess one could say that Bioshock is moving gaming, as a deeper experience, to a more mainstream audience. Maybe that creates awareness for the flexibility of the medium. Maybe it helps to keep a save haven for aspects of game design that seemed almost lost with the current market trends.

Still, the game wouldn't exist if System Shock 2 would have never been made. And System Shock 2 wouldn't exist if it Irrational Games would have been as concerned about "Madden fans" in 1999. So if this trend continues, there won't be a place for future new and genre-defining games to grow and evolve. What games are there to make "spiritual successors" for in the 2010s?

I don't really see how the mainstreamness of Bioshock should be celebrated so much. But yes, it's nice to find people suddenly understand how big and emotional a FPS game can be. It's nice.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/1/2008 9:13 PM · Permalink · Report

What games are there to make "spiritual successors" for in the 2010s?

Clearly you haven't seen this. It's a documentary about how Halo series will deliver the world peace.

Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 4/2/2008 4:16 PM · Permalink · Report

LOL! That was hilarious :)

xroox (3895) on 4/2/2008 5:59 PM · Permalink · Report

D.I. thank you! That video was fantastic!

As for BioShock... I think the best review is St. Martyne's - because it asks a simple but important question: "Why is BioShock a shooter?"

Now, the weird thing is, I'm a big FPS fan. But I think it's a bit sad that the 'most mature storytelling' awards are going to a shooter. I don't think you could show BioShock to a lot of non-gamers and tell them "This is a mature form of entertainment" because basically what it comes down to is running around blowing the crap out of things - like the vast majority of videogames. Shooting things may be fun... but it's not mature.

Lumpi (189) on 4/3/2008 12:06 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Sam Jeffreys wrote--]As for BioShock... I think the best review is St. Martyne's - because it asks a simple but important question: "Why is BioShock a shooter?"[/Q --end Sam Jeffreys wrote--]

Very good question! I guess that was the kind of question I was looking for but was unable to find. I feel exactly the same. I think I like the general concept of "First Person" more than that of a "First Person Shooter" . And Bioshock very deliberately hides in the most "Shooter"-friendly corner of the genre without feeling that comfortable there. Interesting.