I am about to experience shocking biology on survival difficulty.
What will I think of it?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
I am about to experience shocking biology on survival difficulty. What will I think of it?
not as good as fallout 76
>pajeet demaster instead of the superior original
Lmao
I have both. The cd key I got gave me both. But I'm downloading the remaster because the only reason I'm even playing this game (despite having played it before and not liking it) is because an anon convinced me that the survival difficulty is meaningfully different and actually brings out the mechanics.
Didn't the superior original have forced mouse accel?
fixable in seconds by visiting pcgw
The sound in the original has actual 3d audio support via eax, also fixable on pcgw.
What you can't fix is the forced 60 fps lock of the demaster, crashes and missing water shader in a game with lots of water.
pcgw is a godsent
the superior original where the sound dosent work? yeah wonderful. they both suck. the game needs a remake.
works on my machine ¯_(ツ)_/¯
garbage original doesn't have achievements
lol you really posted this without any embarrassment didn't you
The superior original had some audio bug that nobody had a working fix for just a couple anecdotal "I changed my clock and it werkz guys" cases. This is just your nostalgia of playing it at 15fps on an xbox back in the day.
Unironically the best "immersive sim" if you can even call that a real genre. I'll probably make a case sooner or later for why
this does not fall into that genre at all. this is a shitty FPS with light RPG elements. everything is very scripted, their is no immersion to it at all.
>everything is very scripted
everything is scripted in any "immersive" sim too and if you think otherwise you're genuine far more moronic than you even know it. I could prove it right now, deconstruct the entire stupid fricking genre, but it doesn't matter. because your believe isn't based on logic in the first place anyway. it's based on moronic feeling else, you wouldn't have said "shitty FPS" as if that doesn't apply to literally every "Imsim" in existence. kys worthless moron, I'm so fricking tired of these type of unthinking morons that develop these moronic narratives that they've obviously never dwelled on for more than a second so that it makes it impossible to talk about videogames honestly.
but nobody else in this thread will understand because narratives are narratives, and they specifically exist to discourage authentic thought.
>everything is scripted in any "immersive" sim too
stopped reading there, youre moronic
yeah, they are all scripted, but bioshock has basically one path you follow. it's not like you can take all sorts of different branching routes and strategies to complete your objective. you go forward in a line and shoot, with a few terminals you can hack to deactivate an alarm or to make a turret shoot your enemies. human revolution is also just a shooter with RPG elements, but that game is actually good. unironically, the only "imsim" i can think of that actually fits the genre is shadow of doubt.
Human Revolution is such a bizarre game to me. I like it, but it's clear half of the concessions they made compared to the original was due to publisher demands to "streamline" the experience, but the other half of its concessions feel like they didn't need to be made. It really didn't need constantly regenerating health for example, that shit should've just been an active augmentation like the original
I dunno if you mean the original or reboot, but either way you're wrong.
>yeah, they are all scripted
oh so you're atleast NOT moronic. So I'll put a tiny bit more effort into a response
>but bioshock has basically one path you follow. it's not like you can take all sorts of different branching routes and strategies to complete your objective.
first of all. most "imsims" are linear, and the ones that aren't like "thief" only work like that because their objective is more akin to a fetch quest. it would be the equivalent of if in BioShock you had to backtrack back and forth between two levels picking shit up. I don't want to go too indepth because there's a lot that can be dissected about the concept of "linearity".
but something I'll say is this: Even if I give you the "different branching paths" thing, not only is this not exclusive to imsims (not inherent enough to define it) but this doesn't make it "good" or "special" the way people who jerk imsims think. Frick. I REALLY don't want to talk about this shit even though I have SO many examples that could break this down right now. I'm trying to figure out how to put this with the least effort possible.
basically long story short: multiple paths trivialize "challenge". When you have "multiple paths" two things can occur. One path has to be "unbalanced". Or both paths have to be so simple in their "obstacles" that they become redundant.
why is one path being "unbalanced" bad? Because you can just go to the other one. Why is both paths being simple bad? Because it makes the decision between either path feel arbitrary.
that's the short form, I don't mean this in any offense, but you'll have to do the rest of the legwork to understand what means with what I've given.
I used to think that Thief was the best counter example to imsims, because it's "interactivity" is even SIMPLER than fricking Zelda (OoT) but honestly I think it's System Shock 2 that's the best example. This is a game that's so linear and led on. On top of having almost zero of the "interactivity" of Deus ex
idk why you wrote all that shit. i stated that bioshock is not an imsim and then after stated the only game i can think of that actually fits the criteria for the genre is shadow of doubt.
then you missed my point and I don't need you to respond to me again. my point was a breakdown fundementally of "imsims" I don't care whether BioShock is one or not. my argument is against the type of people that try to reduce BioShock and imply it's "lesser" for not being Imsim. Or that it's "dumbed down" when imsims are some of the most simple games I have ever played.
I think I've heard of "shadows of doubt" and you're definitely taking the "immersive" part of Imsim WAY too literally because I don't think that's at all what people mean by the word. If I had to think, the closest thing to the idea of an "Imsim" almost purely. is Prey 2017, even tho I didn't like that game
>I don't care whether BioShock is one or not
you made the claim that it is the best one, though.
>you're definitely taking the "immersive" part of Imsim WAY too literally because I don't think that's at all what people mean by the word.
nope, shadows of doubt just does what people say immersive sims are supposed to do, whereas every other example of an immersive sim i've seen before isn't that, and is more just "linear RPG where you can take route A or route B." though, i think we both agree that the genre is basically nonexistent.
bioshock is a shitty game, regardless of genre.
>you made the claim that it is the best one, though.
no the frick I did not, I'm not that same anon
>nope, shadows of doubt just does what people say immersive sims are supposed to do
what does that mean? from what I remember from some shit Ive seen of the game it had a PARTICULAR lack of interaction outside of what was directly related to the tasks you're supposed to complete
>bioshock is a shitty game, regardless of genre.
we'll see. it could have potential. I actually like Deus ex. but the "multiple options" thing results in a lack of balance, and for me. that ended up being having more resources than I could ever need. because id just always take both route A and B. Its seriously fricking stupid and I don't know how people jerk this shit off. But anyway, before I had so many resources that I literally couldn't pick up more shit. the game was fun with with the way it constantly presented mini "obstacles" that you'd have to use your tools or environment to get around.
and based on gameplay I've seen of BioShock it's the ONLY "Imsim" that focuses heavily on that, call it simple, but the point isn't about it being complicated, Deus ex isn't a deep game. it's about feeling like you have to pay attention to, and understand your environment to use it constantly.
and simple stuff like melting ice with fire powers could be exactly that, aslong as it's built on. it could be Deus ex without being trivialized by multiple redundant paths.
COULD be.
>no the frick I did not, I'm not that same anon
i responded to the anon that said bioshock is the best immersive sim, you responded to that without saying you were not him. it only goes to reason to assume that you were him.
>the game it had a PARTICULAR lack of interaction outside of what was directly related to the tasks you're supposed to complete
which was what, exactly? what was the lack of interaction?
>and simple stuff like melting ice with fire powers could be exactly that, aslong as it's built on. it could be Deus ex without being trivialized by multiple redundant paths.
it is nothing like that. it is almost a corridor shooter, but has no cover system. combat is janky and bad, but it is really the only thing the game has. there aren't really puzzles, there aren't redundant paths. the maps are straight lines, pretty much, with an offshoot here or there to find more suitcases and desks to loot for ammo/money. the powers are mostly inconsequential. despite a very simple map with very simple objectives, there is STILL a quest arrow to show you the way to go.
>it only goes to reason to assume that you were him.
sure. and I was clarifying.
>it is almost a corridor shooter
I don't understand this "term". I've heard something like TLOU called a "corridor shooter" and anybody who unironically applies this term to that game is moronic and unironically cannot understand objective reality beyond the literal words they use. I don't know if that makes sense. My point is that "corridor shooter" doesn't mean anything. Literally almost ANYTHING can be called a corridor shooter even something with objectively non linear exploration like System Shock Remake. This word doesn't mean anything to me without context, because people often abuse it
>but has no cover system.
that's fine, there are ways a game can be designed around that. RE4 skirts this by centering gameplay around staggering and meleeing enemies, as well as the fact that projectiles can be interacted with (shot down) if BioShock follows a similar principle in a different way then it's fine without cover.
>there aren't really puzzles
I'm not asking for puzzles. Deus Ex has no puzzles. Many puzzle games are overrated and as far as I'm concerned there's only one TRULY good one, and the way it's "puzzles" work are so "natural" that it doesn't seem like puzzles, just interacting with the world. I just want little "obstacles" that the game forces me to think about how to use my tools to overcome. I don't like straight shooters, I like the pacing being broken up.
>there aren't redundant paths.
yes, that is a good thing.
>the maps are straight lines
so are dark souls 1 maps, and they are infinitely more complex than 90% of games, but if that example doesn't make sense then...hmm I don't really know another example that I can use without knowing how many games you truly understand, since all my examples are games people tend not to get. basically a level can be linear but still good
>there is STILL a quest arrow to show you the way to go.
I agree this is bad
>imsims are some of the most simple games I have ever played
then you're an idiot who doesn't know how game dev works
true bro, that's why open world games are the deepest games ever, because of how much effort a dev has to put. infact how about we just admit that red dead redemption 2 is the most deep and complex game ever made?
I seriously don't understand why I bother talking to you morons. you don't think. you don't think at all, just find anyway to disagree so that you can protect your feelings and preconceived beliefs
The vast majority of open world games these days are the definition of "wide as an ocean, shallow as a puddle", congratulations, pretty much everyone with half a brain knows that at this point. That's not at all relevant though.
lol. no self awareness, I'll be done. you don't have the capacity to engage in a meaningful discussion, it's fine. you never made an argument in the first place, just exclaimed "you're an idiot because you don't think the way I do!" arriverdeci
OK, see you tomorrow you pretentious twit.
no one brought up "game dev effort" or open world games, you schizo. you are fighting demons in your head. you talk about others and their preconceived beliefs, yet are making up arguments lmao
You have no idea what you're talking about unironic.
Yeah there's scripted moments but the little sisters moving around the world to corpses and harvesting them letting you set up boss fights with the big daddies wherever you want was very unique and revolutionary at the time.
Mediocre
>on survival difficulty
Pain and boredom
>Pain and boredom
In what way? You sure you didn't just get filtered? This happens particularly when people play certain games on hardmode that they had no respect for before hand, so even if it's better, they literally tell themselves subconsciously not to like it. Obviously not all hardmodes are good but I'm just theorizing
NTA and been a long time since I played but iirc all the hardest difficulty does is make you get rekt easy and the enemies damage sponges then takes away the vita chambers so you have to reload your save instead.
So yeah I agree with him, pain and boredom.
In a similar way, I am an old school RE survival horror player but new RE games have autosaves and hardcore difficulty just brings back the outdated save system. More of a chore than a feature, though that suits the REmakes 2&3 as they are based on OG survival horror games.
My point is mechanics that just make the game tedious are not fun.
There for a challenge sure but not fun.
Better difficulty options are where there are new enemies, enemy variety, placements etc not bullet sponges and 1shot you.
>My point is mechanics that just make the game tedious are not fun.
I generally agree, it just depends.
For example, I generally think the classic way of survival horror doing resource management is more tedium than challenge OR fun. And I've beaten all the resident evils on hard. But one specific game used it in an incredibly compelling way for me personally, and that game is both HARDER and more challenging, since you can legit die in one shot.
I think most people would intuitively think of that as "tedium" and that game was so hard that some levels took me almost an entire day straight to beat, but it was satisfying and fun. Because that difficulty made its mechanics more valuable and poignant. I had to think about and use everything in my arsenal. I DONT do that with RE except for obvious shit like using flame rounds on plants. I either stick to the pistol, or pull out the shotgun when I don't want to bother with some bullshit.
I'm just saying it depends. Personally I think I could fairly objectively outline the difference between tedium and challenge. It's sort of the same thing as the subtle difference of trial and error verses skill.
But yeah. Thanks for the heads-up, Ill TRY it, and if I don't like it, then I'll frick off. The lack of vita chambers DOES sound tedious but I'm just hoping it all clicks properly in the end. If not, then this was a waste of money.
>takes away the vita chambers
thats a separate option than survival. lore wise the vita chambers make sense so if ur going for immersion u leave them on
you have to complete the reading list of books to understand it.
Start with the Greeks, move on to the Jacobites then finish at Ayn Rand.
>you have to complete the reading list of books to understand it.
>Start with the Greeks, move on to the Jacobites then finish at Ayn Rand.
I don't think the game is THAT deeply philosophical lmao, I think I'll be fine.
Honestly now that I think about it. I can't think of many games at all that are particularly philosophically deep. I recently played some Talos Principle and wasn't that impressed. Closest thing I've found is Disco Elysium, but that's more political philosophy, and life philosophy
https://archive.org/details/bioshock-the-ethnic-struggle-the-hatred
oh fricking I heard about this American krogan moron in another thread. blatant chud or poltard
you'll think 'shit this is moronic why didn't i pick normal mode'
I don't get it? Was I trolled? What's wrong with the survival difficulty? I thought the game was often said to be too easy? How can any of its mechanics matter when it's easy? Especially when it's a game with so many abilities. A game that is focused and knows what it wants it's experience to be, can be simple and easy, like Outer Wilds, since limitations breed creativity. But a game which prides itself on giving you a dozen ways to frick with enemies? Difficulty cannot be easy.
i recently played it on hard and by the time I got to Neptune's Bounty and for the rest of the game it was too easy.
shit game nobody cares about anymore
Deus ex is still considered a classic, and system shock is more relevant than ever, all BioShock has Is what? "Judas"? kek
stfu
unfortunately most games' highest difficulty settings just make you cheap glass and every enemy ultimate damage sponges. im not sure why many devs think this is a good thing but its typically what we get. theres a very rare few games out there that get difficulty right and i dont think bioshock was one of them
i think deus ex human rev and mankind were ones that got it right. and fear 1 was amazing on the highest difficulty. those are the only ones i can think of off the top of my head
I thought Deus ex hr was explicitly not that since it just makes you shoot less. But anyway, it seems BioShock applies to the bad types I guess. Unfortunate.
>just makes you shoot less
im not sure what you mean
The game still has regenerating health and energy, isn't what makes it "hard" less about any tactical or mechanical depth, and moreso that the game gives you little to no ammo? frick I wish I remember which video I watched that showed even with the restricted ammo the game was still easy as frick
i played it very recently. i dont remember ever running out of ammo in any encounter. it does turn into a cover shooter though. but thats how i like to play it. take cover and find open windows to take some shots. they start coming at you if you stay in one place for too long so you have to constantly move from cover to cover by using your cloak or other augmentations. it forces you to be alert and active
ill give hr this, cover shooters are not my favorite but its a good cover shooter at least. it feels responsive and difficult enough
and mankind divided continued this and even made it better. a fantastic sequel in every regard
MD improved on the formula on a lot of ways, although I think the inclusion of Prague ended up being a slight against the game because of its bizarre pacing making people think the game was unfinished. It's a real goddamn shame that Square-Enix fricked it over so hard with all that pre-order bullshit though.
my only issue with md was that it felt very short even with the dlc missions
I can't fault it for missing those DLC missions because Square went full moron with those (I wish someone modded them into the main game already) but I really think having most of the game be in Prague hurt its pacing. The game really isn't that much shorter than the other games, but it certainly feels shorter when you spend most of your time in the same place and the plot doesn't move forward much as a result.
either way its a shame it didnt get the third game for closure. im still hoping it comes out one day
>But anyway, it seems BioShock applies to the bad types I guess. Unfortunate.
its been a while. i could be very wrong. give it a try and see
>Bio means water
>You can't swim in this game
At least Bioshock 2 let you go out into the ocean in the diving suit.
Bioshock was only 679KB? boy technology moves fast
I remember all versions had massive gamebreaking bugs on PC.
>I am about to experience shocking biology on survival difficulty.
50/50 chance you kys
So is it just known to be shit? Did I get trolled by another anon or is something up here? And which difficulty should I play anyway then if the hardest one is so bad? Which one still brings the most out of the game's mechanics.
The 2nd hardest.
The hardest difficulty in Bioshock 1 is dog shit and not very fun. Bioshock 2 did it way better.
Just play the System Shock reboot or something.
>Just play the System Shock reboot or something.
Already played it. It's beyond shit and I could write an essay on it, but that game has a mega circlejerk here and "discussion" and "argumentation" is a fake concept here. It's not appreciated, or respected enough to matter. Even if I'm right I'll just get pelted with hollow insults. Waste of my time.
played it. It's beyond shit
If that's what you think, Bioshock is unlikely to impress.
Bioshock's a better game than System Shock though.
Make your case. Intuitively having played both Systems Shocks, I want to agree. But I've also already played a bit of the game before and wasnt impressed.
if ure the resident evil / system shock schizo then dont play bioshock on any difficulty. leave this site and stop gaming, find a new hobby
mods should SERIOUSLY fricking insta delete morons like this. I don't get how people that don't care to contribute to discussion to shitpost about posters they don't like is just a thing on this moronic shit board.
fyi i also made these posts
Word of advice: never try to have genuine conversation on Ganker. Nearly everyone is a reddit import now and they post like Ganker has a karma or updoots system. That's why half the posts are dumb bullshit you'd see in the reply section on Twitter.
But in any case, I'm a huge fan of BioShock 1, the ability to control each level and use it to combat enemies is still something it excels at over most modern games, and it's absolutely necessary at the highest difficulty. But beating a Big Daddy utilizing every available mechanic in conjunction is a feeling of satisfaction few other games have given me.
>Word of advice: never try to have genuine conversation on Ganker.
I know this already man but I can't just keep my thoughts bottled up in my head. I like to talk about this, I like to express myself, I like to learn and understand new perspectives, I like to test to robustness of my beliefs. I just like to think and talk about shit man. Where else can I go?
I've always said that Ganker is more like reddit than people even realize. But I don't necessarily subscribe to the "reddit imports" theory. WAY too many of these guys brazenly say "homosexual", "Black person" and "troony" you simply CANNOT be from reddit talking like that.
I think it's more likely that Ganker. Just like every social media platform. Is effectively a borderline highschool social group where people get bullied for being "different" to the majority, and anyone who ever tries to talk about anything seriously or indepth, gets dismissed and ignored as "boring" because they're not constantly reacting to the latest, news, or trend, or simply validating popular beliefs and narratives.
I've come to think that people simply, fundementally, inherently, are not logical, critical, and interested in understanding things for their sake. They only "understand" if it validates their feelings and egos, and brings them closer to part of the "group".
Thanks for your perspective on BioShock though. That encouraging, I'll try to push on. I really have lots of doubts. But I really do hope it surprises me like another game I recently played managed to do. That game was also one that I learned most people don't even understand. Ironically because most don't play it on the hardest difficulty as well. But I think it's more than that, it's what that game represents. "Moviegame".
Anyway I'm rambling. Peace
>I've come to think that people simply, fundementally, inherently, are not logical, critical, and interested in understanding things for their sake. They only "understand" if it validates their feelings and egos, and brings them closer to part of the "group".
holy reddit
>But I really do hope it surprises me like another game I recently played managed to do.
what game
Can't say. The type of responses when I mention the game are too predictable for me to do so. It's impossible to talk about this game honestly on this board. Even though I've written an essay about it here and posted it. Your only hint is that it's not a niche game. It's one of the most popular and beloved games of all time. And none of the people that love it. Or hate it. Truly appreciate it or understand it, for what it does especially well.
It is not open world. And it is not "action". It is also not part of a series or franchise of games. It is not a standalone title, it has a sequel, but I'd barely call 2 games a franchise. That's all.
tlou
yeah, it's definitely tlou, and you are definitely a dumbass who is in 3x3 threads trying to get people to talk about tlou to see if they "get it" or not
this you?
op is so insufferable hes getting a reputation despite posting as anon
TLOU is a movie game because it never stops trying to force the story in gameplay with constant forced slow walking while listening to dialogue and constant camera snapping to try and pretend something cinematic is going on, Death Stranding isn't becuase while yes it has a lot of cutscenes and a greater focus on story 80% of what you're doing is pure untouched gameplay and when there is story moments that aren't cutscenes they don't snap the gameplay to force you to look at the story but instead feed into the gameplay to tell the story through the gameplay instead of around it. TLOU is a generic TPS with a generic story. Death Stranding is pure ludokino of the highest order.
You're the most pretentious moron I've met on Ganker in a long time. Congrats.
Also how do you feel about BioShock 2? I've heard many actually say that it does everything better than 1. Level design especially, which is very important to me. How true actually is that?
To me it's the same as Dead Space 1 and 2. 1 technically has the better plot and tone but 2 completely shits on it in gameplay and general level design. Bioshock 2 is a lot better than 1. People only rant and rave about 1 because of the meme twist. The story isn't that impressive otherwise.
>but 2 completely shits on it in gameplay and general level design.
...frick am I seriously going to have to buy the second game? *sigh* and I was deliberately avoiding buying the collection.
There's literally 0 reason to not get the collection. For how shit it is compared to 1 and 2 I'd even say Infinite is worth a single playthrough cause at least the gameplay had some fun ideas.
You will find it tremendously tedious, especially with that camera shit
just play it, little guy.
>survival difficulty
thats gonna be tough with a controller
mid as frick shooter with crappy reload animations, no multiplayer and PS2 ass looking graphics. The original doesn't even have achievements lmao.
Needs a remake fr fr
I played on normal but changed the difficulty to hard right before the final boss so I got the achievement for beating the game on hard lol
good thread that turned into bad thread because of space invaders
point to these invaders, i would like to see for myself.
They're really easy to see it's just anyone that heavily relies on insults or uses the word schizo instead of engaging with what somebody means
>say moronic things
>people laugh
>is it me who is the moron? no it must be the other people
If you're still seething about people laughing at your dumb opinions then you're not even worth arguing with.
that its a very israeli game
Quick note, this is the sperg from yesterday who keeps writing massive walls of text.
He asked for recommendations for two games yesterday and had to do it in three seperate posts. Massive narcissist so I hear.
Anyways I hope you enjoy Bioshock, I like Bioshock. Not reading all that though.
israeli slop.
Shooting is literally the least of the reason you should play this game btw. Shooting is so incredibly boring an annoying in it.
The set pieces, the lore, the story, the characters are top notch though. And I also always enjoyed getting audiologs.
>The set pieces, the lore, the story, the characters are top notch though.
These are all the things I don't care for in a videogame
>And I also always enjoyed getting audiologs.
ESPECIALLY this, so I don't have much hope but I'm holding out
Why are you playing bioshock then, zoomie?
People play it for the setting and story, not the shooting.
>Why are you playing bioshock then, zoomie?
cuz somebody sold me on another perspective of it.
and another game that I recently played that people ONLY PRAISE or SHIT ON when it comes to how "story focused" it is. Surprised me with just how special and thought out it's gameplay was to me. In a VERY specific way that is very rare for me to see and find generally.
It's just hard for me to explain. Well actually I could explain it almost exactly. To a T. The EXACT reason it made such an impression on me and why I found it so uniquely good but...the problem is that even if I did. I don't think anybody would understand.
But the core point to take away, is that I came across an amazing game that people praise for its story and visuals, and I cared for neither (well I liked the visuals) in fact a staunchly DISLIKE the story except for a couple scenes that felt very raw.
Well anyway that's it. I doubt you cared much to hear all that but you asked.
so this
is you, then.
>wow this wrench is fricking broken
>opens map
Your character is mind washed into following orders if they begin with "Would you kindly", you kill Andrew Ryan with a flof club, and Fontaine is Atlas
>bioshock 2 has no kino twists or plot refeals like this
bioshock 1 really was the best one
the little sister segment and summoning eleanor was cool in bs2
>survivor difficulty
I mean if you don't upgrade I guess it'd be a challenge but holy shit
Well, I'm also not going to be playing with a keyboard and mouse because "PC chads" talk about console casualization so much and have shit like quick saves and literal points and click gameplay to lean on as a staple.
But that aside, I guess this is a reason I should probably play bio2 since I heard it does difficulty better too *sigh*. I wish people would just tell me the second game is better straight up so that I don't have to waste my time and money
Played Bioshock on both PC and console. Maybe fighting Rosies is a little easier on PC but it's basically the same difficulty. I mean the game was built for consoles whereas its predecessor System Shock 2 wasn't
Stop being a pretentious homosexual. Yes survivor is very doable but it forces you to play in a way that isn't very fun because you need to minmax the shit out of it instead of allowing for fun experimentation. Survivor is a dog shit first playthrough difficulty. Bioshock 2 handles the difficulty way better.
>Bioshock 2 handles the difficulty way better.
So I was right...2 is better. Frick.
>instead of allowing for fun experimentation.
>Survivor is a dog shit first playthrough difficulty.
what's the best difficulty for that balance? because I don't like "rigidity". That more often than not favours trial and error gameplay. But I also don't like too much "freedom" as ive already alluded to. I like a balance of being able to experiment...but also having enough "restriction" that it isn't trivialized...almost like a puzzle.
Which is another reason the game that wowed me before I decided to play BioShock is so good
2nd highest on Bioshock 1(you can do a 2nd playthrough afterwards on the highest) and Bioshock 2 should absolutely be played on the highest. Best amount of challenge without it just being tedious and annoying.
>Yes survivor is very doable but it forces you to play in a way that isn't very fun because you need to minmax the shit out of it instead of allowing for fun experimentation
Not even remotely. What are you drinking? I played it by fricking around with all kinds of different weapons and plasmids with vita chambers off. Only the start of the game is somewhat difficult and you can't really experiment at that point in time
Nobody wants to play Bioshock like a cover shooter.
I never had to on survivor difficulty because rosies are the only enemies in the game with powerful hitscan and you don't even have to fight them if you don't want. Spider, houdini, thuggish and nitros all have slow projectiles and are easy to deal with. Leadheads have hitscan but it doesn't hurt unless there's around 3 of them. Bouncer big daddies are melee only. Security bots and turrets you can just shut down.
Ok now I'm sure you either played a completely different game or you're just flat out making shit up because you're completely full of shit here.
What part was wrong?
If you try and say to me that you can avoid getting shot by enemies which can kill you in like 2 hits because "muh hitscan" while standing out in the open. Nah. You're fricking lying.
Only rosies can kill you in two hits and only at this point in the game. This right here in Neptune's bounty pre-grenade launcher against the first rosie is literally the most difficult fight in the entire game
...what is your point with this webm? not that anon, just wondering, there's not much that can be determined about difficulty over all from you just telling us an out of context clips is the most or only difficult thing
That the only time in the game on survivor difficulty you ever need to use cover is against a rosie. You can be as fricking moronic as you want went fighting every other enemy in the game. There is absolutely no need for mixmaxing like this other schizo believes
>It's literally not possible because everything takes so much punishment
Only in the medical pavillion and neptune's bounty. Once you hit arcadia the game starts throwing tonics and upgrades at you everywhere and devolves into a joke on EVERY difficulty. You can play however you want and still win every engagement.
>Only in the medical pavillion and neptune's bounty. Once you hit arcadia the game starts throwing tonics and upgrades at you everywhere and devolves into a joke on EVERY difficulty. You can play however you want and still win every engagement.
I mean sure the game does get easier towards the end but it never escapes that initial flimsiness. You're still going to eat shit if you don't minmax and play cautiously.
>There is absolutely no need for mixmaxing like this other schizo believes
stop throwing around labels baselessly. You haven't even proved your point without a reasonable doubt yet. I don't know why you're throwing moronicly shallow insults. It makes you sound moronic and biased. Like you're motivated to find every way to twist this as "wrong" rather than objectively have a point.
hm whatever man. this is Ganker. I shouldn't be trusting their judgements of difficulty anyway. if there's anything I've learned on here it's that even when something is difficult to somebody, they can find a dozen ways to rationalize it as "actually not difficult". I'll just play myself and look forward to BioShock 2 if I find the difficulty more tedious than challenging.
>I don't know why you're throwing moronicly shallow insults
Because you're a fricking idiot who is having trouble with survivor difficulty when it isn't even remotely difficult. You continue to neglect the argument that the player upgrades severely outpace the increase in strength of enemies between levels and that the rosie is the only difficult enemy in the game because of the sheer hitscan damage. You do not need to play this like a cover shooter at all on any difficulty and are free to frick around as much as you like.
He hasn't even played the game yet you moron. Are you even paying attention to what people are saying?
He's straight up fricking lying you absolute mongoloid. He's obviously played the game and it shows. I wouldn't be surprised if you're him
No. I'm starting to unironically think he's moronic. It's honestly getting sad at this point. Like I actually feel bad. I don't know why Ganker is always like this. Why do you constantly have to be mad to the point that your grounding on reality isnt even stable because you're blinded by rage or whatever ego stroking you want to do?
Just chill out. Make reasoned arguments, and don't make baseless insults that say more about you than the person you're throwing them out. It's so simple and yet you morons act like unironic monkeys. Like you don't have the basic human capacity to be self aware of your behaviour and communication.
>webm of the final boss being wrenched to death
>baseless argument
uh huh
difficult game anon
The wrench was OP as frick in 1 once you got that plasmid that boosted it's damage what the frick are you talking about? I used that shit all the time since it saved me ammo. In fact I think I might have used it against the the last boss too since it was the easiest way of dealing with him.
Every single weapon in Bioshock is OP as frick except the pistol. Easiest way to kill Fontaine is electric gel because it stunlocks him
Answer
this question. Is the version you're talking about the original or the remaster?
Remaster
Ok yeah you're lying. Explains why you're getting so mad and defensive when people push back.
webms straight from the remaster but okay
I'm only getting defensive because one said you need to minmax to beat survivor difficulty which is a complete and utter lie
You posted a webm of the rosie fight but you haven't posted anything of you proving you could play recklessly against anything else. I always had to put something between me and enemies because they just tank so much damage and I'd eat thing my healing if I didn't.
Because nothing else is a threat except leadheads as I've explained.
Nitros. Easy to dodge or use telekinesis to stop their grenade. After research their grenades even fizzle out.
Thuggish. Struggle to hit you. Very telegraphed leaps. Sportsboost is just going to make it easier.
Houdini. You can hear their firebolts coming from across a football field because of how many audio channels they dedicated to it. They're not fast moving bolts either.
Spiders. Just like thuggish they have a similar leap. They actually spend a lot of time doing acrobatics rather than fighting. You can straight up shock them off the ceiling when they go up there.
Leadheads. A bit of a threat in groups but if they're isolated pretty much any plasmid will frick them over. Peachy is actually a challenging boss fight.
Rocket turrets. You just fling those rockets right back at them with telekinesis.
Machinegun turrets. Shock and hack them or use a grenade launcher or crossbow.
Bouncer big daddies. Just kite em. If they get too close give them a shock.
Rosie big daddies. A legitimately tough enemy because it's about timing the rivet gun. Grenade launcher from behind cover works well. Both big daddies can easily be beaten with proximity grenades, however. Or you could hypnotize them.
>the game's easy, just play like an autistic minmaxing sperg
Ganker always gives out the absolute stupidest opinions on difficulty and it never ceases to impress me the sheer mental gymnastics on display. The argument is simple and you still haven't refuted it. Enemies do too much damage in ways you can't actually avoid, like guns(hur shock them) sure fine on a one on one but it's barely ever a one on one and juggling counters for so many different enemies isn't possible so the only solution is to get cover or tank the hits.
Honestly as much as you don't realize it. You make combat sound very compelling. As if BioShock takes the "interactive freedom" aspects of immersive sims that's so praised for being used in their levels, and applies them wholesale to enemies and encounters. I don't think any other Imsim does that, because they all suck at combat. Not that I even believe "Imsim" is a real genre. Just using it as a shorthand
Obviously bad balance can ruin anything tho
bioshock is the foundation for a good combat system, ultimately it does nothing interesting with it beyond stun -> shoot to kill (or hit with wrench) because first person cameras are basically a get out of jail card for bad game design. Bioshock 2 at least does something with it and is a more fun game as a result.
I can't tell which anon you are. The webm one, or the one that thinks BioShock 1 is unbalanced, but I'm guessing the latter. Which is why I'll probably skip Bio1 as soon as I feel anything funky. I'm sad I'll be betraying that one anon that convinced me to play it though, but I'm pretty sure he said the second game was better too anyway.
I'm pretty sure 2 being better is the common opinion on Ganker. I don't think I've ever seen anyone disagree with the statement that the gameplay is better in 2. The only people who think 1 is better think so because of the story or the environmental design.
Neither, read the name, we're Anonymous posters here. Bioshock 1 had some nice ideas but lacked the creativity to see them develop which was thankfully rectified by its sequel. Not having to hand off plasmids from guns was a good start, as was building integrated designs which require the player to change their style from aggressive stun-shooter to defensive planner.
>as was building integrated designs which require the player to change their style from aggressive stun-shooter to defensive planner.
frick that sounds pretty good. combine this with some decent level design and "obstacles" (I can't really call them puzzles since from what I've seen of them, they remind me of what you do in Deus ex to bypass areas, or find more items) and might have a top tier game here, possibly better than all the imsims people wank so hard that I all played and were all disappointing because they have like no actual core gameplay, all breadth no depth. anyway
>You can only try it and see how you mesh with it. I would definitely say that both are absolutely worth playing and are both great games in their own rights.
yeah. I wish 1 had something in gameplay that made it stand out from 2. for a while I thought the whole "you can't dual wield plasmids and guns" could be something interesting that forced you to switch between the two tactically/deliberately. sort of like how weapon switching works in TLOU if anyone has experience with that game on grounded. But NOBODY has made anything close to that argument so I'm just assuming it's more tedious than a factor to consider mid combat.
>But NOBODY has made anything close to that argument so I'm just assuming it's more tedious than a factor to consider mid combat.
Correct
>could be something interesting that forced you to switch between the two tactically/deliberately
It's more that it creates tedium/confusion in the original game. You stun shock somebody, you KO them with a shotgun shot or headshot or something, but you're basically just switching weapons, however there's two weapon pools so when you switch back to the other you may not be on the weapon you want yadda yadda more micromanagement. I reiterate, Bioshock had good ideas but didn't see them through. Bioshock 2 realized them.
I hope I can get bioshock 2 on sale soon or find it on some keysite
I mena people can make any arguments they want, I still won't relent that survivor in 1 is more just cheap difficulty and isn't very fun compared to 2 where it's actually engaging but difficulty is a nebulous concept and what you take from it is up to anyone. You can only try it and see how you mesh with it. I would definitely say that both are absolutely worth playing and are both great games in their own rights.
NTA, but shouldn't there be some subtle difference that can make it easy to tell whether it's remastered survivor or original? Because you bring up an interesting point, I didn't even realize there was two different survivor difficulties, I bought the remaster explicitly because I thought only IT had survivor difficulty period. Like the original didn't have survivor difficulty at all and it was added on in remaster.
it was a thing in the ps3 version only and then brought to remaster
whether it's identical i can't say but playing at 20-25 fps on ps3 is always going to be a little harder
Ok? That doesn't change what I said. You're still going to eat bullets and die if you don't play by hiding behind cover. It's literally not possible because everything takes so much punishment and you are so flimsy. If you played that way you could maybe just spam heals but then you'd have to constantly go back to buying more which even if it were possible again boils down to the initial point of the difficulty just forcing you to play in a way that isn't very fun.
Are you talking about the original version or the remastered version? Because the remaster survivor mode is a metric shit ton harder than it was in the original release
Survivor difficulty is not considerably harder because it doesn't increase the plasmid EVE costs or increase the amount of damage enemies do like hard difficulty does. It just gives them an absolute frickload of health.
No I'm not talking about the difference between hard and Survivor. I mean literally survivor difficulty in the original PS3 version of the game was easier than Survivor in the remaster version. They rebalanced it to make it harder for some reason.
here is the pretentious homosexual's 3x3. posted alongside this comment
>My taste is better than your taste. Sometimes I wanna switch out New Vegas for Counter Strike
Good
Good
Good
Good
Bad
Bad
Good
Bad
Bad
Not the worst 3x3 I've seen
I think it's the funniest thing on Ganker. How often people get objective facts about me wrong, because it allows me to easily dismiss their judgement wholesale. Because the type of person that would come to that conclusion doesn't have enough logical stopgaps, or respect for logic period, or understanding of logic period to understand the multiple ways we as people arrive at conclusions that we think are so right...and are so much more wrong than we would have ever considered
lmao deny it all you like, you are transparent. you have a very specific writing style and points that you harp on, you (just like dissertationgay) think you are far above everyone around you. a pompous, bigheaded buffoon who sees those around him as sheep. while not the case, even if it were, it is better to be a sheep in a flock than a wolf without a pack.
dont be a b***h and turn those vita chambers off, its easy
why's the second game more balanced anyway? I'm thinking of skipping the first game all together because I'm tired of having to balance games for the devs that can't do it themselves
Enemies don't obliterate you as quickly and there's more enemies so you don't obliterate them as quickly so there's less harsh "this game is a complete joke" and "this game is complete bullshit" like the first game constantly flip flopped between.
>Enemies don't obliterate you as quickly and there's more enemies so you don't obliterate them as quickly
The game is literally the opposite of this. Both you and your enemies melt each other very quickly. Bioshock 2 just provides the fairness of the last stand mechanic which when you drop to 1 HP you have a chance to heal before you die. That was also in Bioshock 1 but only on lower difficulties.
That is absolutely not true. You're a big daddy in 2, it's literally the whole point that you're tankier than you were in 1 when you were just a normal dude. Enemies deal way less damage in 2 than they did in 1 because you're slower but compensating this is you having more damage to dish out and there being more enemies.
Sequels will always get less acclaim due to taking more from the first game that the first game gets credit for. 2 also doesn't have any big "wow, mind blown" twists that people mainly remember 1 for.
Interesting...I really want to make another thread garnering more peoples opinions and thoughts on BioShock 2 and why they think it simultaneously gets less Revere than the first game, but is also semi often called better than the first game
>Wow ken levine really hates christians
>wow he really hates whites calling them all parasites
>anyway that was moronic
You'll either like the game and its immediate sequel Bioshock 2; or the only game in the series you will like is Bioshock Infinite.
revisited this recent and it's honestly better than system shock remake I'd look forward to a new bioshock game if they could nail a new setting but not go the regenerating health and more run and gun feeling combat of infinite
i'm playing this just now and the aiming/hit detection feels awful, it's putting me off playing it but hopefully i get used to it
I think I get you, the very first time I played it, aiming just felt so off for some reason. One of the few games that's like that for me