The Box may have just taking about BioShock 2 (with some rant on co-op play), but I’m here today to talk about the first.
I was gifted the game for Christmas of 2007, but I never played it until Feb. of ’09. It gave me between 10 & 15 hours of game play (on easy... story first, then maybe achievements) but that was spread out over the course of 2 and a half intense days.
Graphics were great, but had some glitches that you might not find in a new great title such as Gears of War 2. But, considering the game came out in the same year as Halo 3, I’d say the detail was better.
That may not be entirely fair, given Halo included a lot of large outdoor roaming which makes little details harder to create (unless you have a $6000 Crysis machine). BioShock was entirely in tight, confined space (being an underwater city & whatnot).
The lighting & overall feel of Rapture made you feel on-edge or unease. Doom 3 used lighting and sound to scare you because you were expecting something to jump out at you, although it was just a matter of when. BioShock sometimes gave you that feeling, & less often followed though on it.
The story was so rich with detail & character; it made it hard to stop playing. It used some very disturbing imagery in conjunction with its creepy lighting/detail, which really (and continually) emphasized the fact that you were in a dead society that had no morals. The plot has a good upward pace towards its climax, where a twist in the story makes things even more exhilarating.
As a single player game, it was well worth the money (had I paid for it). There is no doubt in my mind that this game deserved the game of the year award that it won in 2007. As a single game, its story beats out Halo 3, but then again, Halo 3 isn’t a story you can fully understand and appreciate on its own. Halo goes far beyond its trilogy into something more than a game, more than what BioShock is.
PS. I think BioShock might make a better movie than Halo, maybe even the trilogy. But not better than the Halo Universe (which would be too long for a single film)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
They don't award Game of the Year awards based on the Expanded Universe of a game.
Halo's novels, etc, etc, etc, would never impact a reviewers selection in that category. They have to review based on the merit of the game alone, because they cannot in good conscience recommend a game to people based on other supplementary materials.
It would be like recommending an adaptation of a novel simply because you liked the book.
Here we go again...
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Halo. And I haven't played Bioshock.
I'm merely pointing out that when he said Halo as a trilogy + extras should have won, it is important to note that they dont award game of the year based on extra material.
i never said Halo + extras should have won. I agree with you; Bioshock > Halo 3 & deserves game of the year.
The Halo Universe & trilogy all together is better than Bioshock however & would make for a better film, in my opinion.
But never did I say Bioshock shouldn't be game of the year. It kicked ass.
Post a Comment