For example in Infinite handymen are simply not affected by possession while Bioshock had a plasmid you could hypnotize big daddys with and when it comes to the handymen/patriot vs. Bioshock had a lot more variety and balance in its combat when it comes to weapons, special ammo types and the range of activites you can do with your plasmids. Bioshock had a lot of exploraition, Infinite is a lot more linear with streamlined side missions. Infinite is viewed as this almost perfect sequel to the first game while a lot of the elements that actually made the first game fantastic are missing: I really think the franchise faces double standards from people who don't like Bioshock 2 for some inexplainable reasons. Other than that you get huge levels, vastly improved combat mechanics and slightly better pacing and graphics with a storyline that has less of an impact (thankfully Minerva's Den saves the day when it comes to that last aspect). The only thing 2K Marin toned down a bit was the sense of free exploration because you can't go back to levels you've already finished but considering that I never did that in Bioshock I view that one as a very minor complaint. I know there is a very minor fraction of the audience who thinks of it as "not a true Bioshock game" simply because it was not developed by Irrational (hell, those guys are in for a treat when Bioshock 4 sees the light of day) but honestly it's a really-really good sequel. I know this will be off-topic but why is that exactly? As far as I know Bio 2 got a very good critical reception with an 88 metascore and a 8.0 userscore with the Steam score also being really high: 90%. Originally posted by Goldâ„Shield:(we won't recognize Bioshock 2 as part of this franchise).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |