What’s all this bitchin’ 'bout the name? Pretend you don’t know what it’s called, look at the trailer and most likely the first thing that comes to mind will be Bioshock anyways. But then most of you would be pissing around screaming stolen, ripoff or some similar bs.
It is a bioshock title no matter what, and looks a lot more promising than the second one at that, move along.
I have not played Bioshock 1 nor 2… I played the demo for the first one and loved it. So not knowing the series I think the trailer for this new one looks AWESOME as hell, so yes I gave into the hype… but it looks really interesting.
Bioshock is not about gameplay, the gameplay is boring as hell, I agree. But the story is AWESOME and deep!
looks pretty awesome, but I think it will be finite
The story wasn’t all that deep. One surprise plot twist was about it. Bioshock was about the environment and atmosphere, which was why it got boring half way through. That can never carry a game for me.
That would also explain why I didn’t like it, since the steampunk atmosphere isn’t really my thing.
With a name like “BioShock” attached to it, It seems to me that the developers are trying to mooch off the success of the first one. To me, It just looks like what Roland Emmerich did in 1998 with “GODZILLA”
Taking a very well known Intellectual property, using its name and maybe a subtle reference to its origins, and creating something that audiences hate right off the back.
God help them should there be Multiplayer with “Bioshock infinite”
shudders after recalling memories of Multiplayer in Bioshock 2
I thought it was just as good as the first one.
I liked it, just not nearly as much as Bioshock 1. While there were a few gameplay tweaks, it just felt like Bioshock 1 DLC, with a weak little plot thrown in to string it together.
I thought it was terrible compared to the first, and I didn’t think too highly of the first.
All of you saying that they’re sticking the name onto it for sales better stop sticking their heads in their asses.
It’s Bioshock because they’re going to keep most of the gameplay elements, storyline, and other such things. That is why it’s tied to the Bioshock franchise.
“LOL NO PLOT TWISTS BAD STORY”
I’m talking about the back story here, stored in the dairies and in your observation. I was truly amazed how the story was told. You get to hear old dairies and see the consequenses of what was happening then as you were walking around. No game AFAIK has such rich back story as Bioshock.
I always consider those atmosphere and environmental. The story itself is what the charachter is playing through directly.
but you do pick up those diaries while your playing, and you play through the aftermath of the fall of rapture (which is where all the enemies and characters are created from.). granted, not all of them are important enough to be called ‘part of the story’ but the ones from like, Ryan, Fontaine and Tennenbaum should be, I think.
Bioshock’s story isn’t deep, it’s just somewhat unique. The fact that you could sufficiently absorb it the first time around means that it’s not too deep.
they can make this forced drivel but they can’t make SS3?
:’(
That’s a rather blunt statement.
Bioshock 2 sucked… A good sequel should take elements that made the original game good, and then add a new setting with new characters and plot. Yatzee said that if I’m not mistaken. 
The best part of bioshock was sander cohen. I skipped most of the diary business though, but I still liked the game.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.